Premises Liability

A claim arising out of a slip and fall, trip and fall or other accident resulting from a dangerous condition on property is generally subject to a two-year statute of limitations in Kansas.

In Kansas the owner or occupant of real property is required to take reasonable steps to eliminate any unreasonable risk of harm posed by the property to people who may come onto it. Depending upon the situation this may be done either by correcting a dangerous condition or by warning about it. The owner or occupant is responsible for conditions known about and which should have been known about. If you wish to find out more about Premises Liability law in the State of Kansas, please click here.

Some examples of dangerous conditions for which liability has been imposed are:

• Unsafe design and/or construction of buildings
  Dangerous and unmarked ditches or culverts
• Improperly maintained equipment, furniture or furnishings
• Overgrown or uncontrolled landscaping
• Inadequate security
• Inadequate lighting
• Slippery/wet walking surfaces
• Defects, holes or obstructions in walking surfaces
• Keeping a dangerous animal
• Swimming pools without proper safeguards

Information about premises liability in Kansas and Missouri

A. The Premises Must Have an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

The general rule with respect to the liability of owners and occupiers of land is that a possessor of land, who knows or should have known of an unreasonable risk of harm posed to persons using the land, by a condition on the land, owes a duty to persons using the land to take reasonable steps to eliminate the unreasonable risk, or warn the users against it.

B. The Possessor of Land Must Have Failed to Take Reasonable Steps to Eliminate the Unreasonable Risk of Harm

The Kansas Supreme Court does not require all unreasonable risks of harm to be completely eliminated in order for a possessor of land to escape liability for an accident occurring on its premises. For example, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in favor of a hotel and against the guest who injured herself on a staple embedded in a meeting room rug. The Court found that because reasonable steps were taken to eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm, there was not even a duty to warn of the danger which remained. After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the hotel (because it was the plaintiffs' appeal), the court stated that the hotel's efforts at vacuuming, regular cleaning, detection and monitoring complaints (or the lack thereof) were sufficient to constitute "reasonable steps" to eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm.

C. Warnings of the Condition by the Possessor of Land Must Be Absent and the Condition Must Not Be Open and Obvious

i. Warnings of the Condition Must Be Absent

The Kansas Supreme Court has stated that a possessor of land can escape liability if it takes steps to warn users of the land against an unreasonable risk of harm found on its property. Typically, this involves the posting of a sign or the installation of a barrier to warn and protect against the danger. However, the Kansas Supreme Court has found that there are certain types of conditions which provide their own warning and hence are not actionable. These are "open and obvious" conditions.

ii. The Condition must not be Open and Obvious

In one case the court found that a puddle- seen and sought to be avoided- was a danger which was sufficiently "open and obvious" that it provided its own warning and no further warning by the owner of the land was necessary. The Supreme Court of Kansas stated: "The obviousness of a risk substitutes for an express warning and satisfies this obligation." The court went on to state that the landowner "may reasonably assume that members of the public will not be harmed by known or obvious dangers which are not extreme, and which any reasonable person exercising ordinary attention, perception, and intelligence could be expected to avoid."

D. The Possessor of Land must have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Condition

In another case the Kansas Supreme Court stated that the duty to correct or warn of a condition which poses an unreasonable risk of harm does not arise until the possessor of land has notice of the condition. Hence, under Kansas law, in order to support recovery in an action where an owner or occupant is charged with negligence, it must be shown that the owner or occupant knows or should have known of the hazard or defect which caused the injury. Liability cannot be imposed where a landlord or an owner or occupant of premises has not been put on actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition or defect that causes plaintiff injury. 

III. Summary

Negligence law in Kansas does not require an owner or occupant of land to be an insurer against all accidents that occur on the premises. However, liability may be imposed upon a possessor of land for certain conditions which present an unreasonable risk of harm to ordinarily careful users of the premises. Once it has been shown that the Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the condition and that the Defendant did not take reasonable steps to eliminate the risk or to warn against it, the possessor of land will then be found responsible to one who is injured by the condition.