Premises Liability Complaint - Kansas

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — KANSAS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Premises
7. Count III — Failure to Warn
8. Damages
9. Jury Demand
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Kansas Practice Notes

CAPTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, KANSAS

DIVISION [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant(s).

PETITION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, and for this Petition against Defendant(s), [________________________________] ("Defendant"), states and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is an individual residing at [________________________________], [________________________________] County, Kansas.

2. Defendant [________________________________] is [an individual/a corporation/a limited liability company/a partnership] [organized under the laws of [________________________________]] with [a principal place of business/residence] at [________________________________], Kansas.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was the [owner/operator/lessee/manager] of the premises located at [________________________________], Kansas (the "Premises").

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as the Kansas District Courts are courts of general jurisdiction pursuant to Kan. Const. Art. III, § 6.

5. Venue is proper in [________________________________] County pursuant to K.S.A. 60-601 et seq., because [the injury occurred in this county / the Defendant resides in this county / the Defendant conducts business in this county].

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Premises and Plaintiff's Status

6. At all times relevant, Defendant [owned/operated/controlled/maintained] the Premises located at [________________________________], Kansas.

7. The Premises were used as [a retail store/restaurant/office building/apartment complex/parking lot/other: ________________________________].

8. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff entered the Premises as [an invitee/a licensee/a lawful entrant] for the purpose of [________________________________].

The Dangerous Condition

9. At the time of Plaintiff's entry, a dangerous condition existed on the Premises, specifically: [________________________________].

10. The dangerous condition was caused by [________________________________] and had existed for [________________________________] prior to Plaintiff's injury.

Notice to Defendant

11. Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition in that [________________________________].

12. In the alternative, Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because, through the exercise of reasonable care and inspection, Defendant should have discovered the hazard.

13. Despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, Defendant failed to correct, repair, or warn Plaintiff of the hazard.

The Incident

14. On or about [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m./p.m.], Plaintiff [slipped/tripped/fell/was struck by/other: ________________________________] due to the dangerous condition described above.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

17. As the [owner/operator/possessor] of the Premises, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances, including:

• ☐ Maintaining the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;
• ☐ Conducting reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions;
• ☐ Taking reasonable steps to remedy known or discoverable hazards;
• ☐ Warning of dangerous conditions that could not be reasonably eliminated.

See Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499 (1994).

18. Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

19. Defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

20. But for Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff would not have been injured.

COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES

21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

22. Defendant had a duty to maintain the Premises in a safe and reasonable condition, including but not limited to:

• ☐ Conducting regular inspections of the Premises;
• ☐ Repairing known hazards in a timely manner;
• ☐ Implementing adequate safety procedures and protocols;
• ☐ Complying with all applicable building codes and safety regulations.

23. Defendant negligently failed to maintain the Premises by [________________________________].

24. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a direct and proximate cause of the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

27. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff, or alternatively, even if the condition was known or obvious, Defendant should have anticipated that harm would occur despite its obviousness. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A.

28. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition by failing to:

• ☐ Post warning signs or notices;
• ☐ Erect barriers or safety devices;
• ☐ Verbally warn Plaintiff of the hazard;
• ☐ Take other reasonable steps to alert visitors of the danger.

29. Defendant's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

DAMAGES

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future medical bills in the amount of $[________________________________];

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity in the amount of $[________________________________];

c. Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and suffering, both past and future (K.S.A. 60-19a02's noneconomic cap does not apply to this jury-tried claim per Hilburn v. Enerpipe, Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127 (2019));

d. Mental Anguish: Emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish;

e. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Diminished quality of life and inability to perform daily activities;

f. Permanent Impairment: Permanent disability and/or disfigurement;

g. Other Damages: [________________________________].

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to the Kansas Constitution, Bill of Rights, § 5, and K.S.A. 60-238.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and award:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. Noneconomic damages in an amount to be determined at trial (K.S.A. 60-19a02's cap does not apply to jury-tried personal-injury claims per Hilburn v. Enerpipe, Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127 (2019));

d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

e. Costs of this action, including court costs and filing fees;

f. Attorney's fees as permitted by law;

g. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kansas Bar No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

KANSAS PRACTICE NOTES

Duty of Care Framework

Kansas uses a unitary/modified standard: the duty owed to invitees and licensees is the same — reasonable care under all the circumstances (Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499 (1994); Wrinkle v. Norman, 44 Kan. App. 2d (2010)). Trespassers remain subject to the traditional lesser duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar)

Under K.S.A. 60-258a, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery if their negligence was less than the causal negligence of the party or parties against whom recovery is sought. If the plaintiff's fault equals or exceeds 50%, recovery is barred. Otherwise, damages are reduced proportionally.

Open and Obvious Defense

Kansas recognizes the open and obvious defense under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A: a possessor is not liable for physical harm caused by a condition whose danger is known or obvious to the entrant, unless the possessor should nonetheless anticipate harm despite the obvious nature of the danger. See Scales v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 2 Kan. App. 2d 491 (1978).

Noneconomic Damages Cap

K.S.A. 60-19a02's $350,000 noneconomic-damages cap was held facially unconstitutional as applied to personal-injury claims tried to a jury, under Kan. Const. Bill of Rights § 5, in Hilburn v. Enerpipe, Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127 (2019). Do not plead or rely on this cap for a jury-tried personal-injury claim.

Punitive Damages

Under K.S.A. 60-3702, punitive damages require clear and convincing proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice. The ordinary cap is the lesser of the defendant's highest gross annual income in the five years immediately before the act or $5 million, subject to the statute's net-worth and profitability alternatives. K.S.A. 60-3703 governs leave to amend.

Government Property Claims

Claims against municipalities require written notice under K.S.A. 12-105b. The claimant must wait until the municipality denies the claim or 120 days pass before filing suit. Claims against the State are governed by the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.).

Statute of Limitations

Generally two (2) years for a qualifying noncontract injury-to-rights action under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4), with accrual governed by substantial injury and reasonable ascertainability under subsection (b). Do not calculate automatically from the incident or injury date.

Kansas Pleading Practice

Kansas uses the term "Petition" rather than "Complaint." The Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure govern practice and procedure.

This template is provided by ezel.ai for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently; always verify current statutes and consult with a licensed Kansas attorney before filing.