Printable Format60-3306. Seller not subject to liability, when. (a) A product seller shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a product, if the product seller establishes that: (1) Such seller had no knowledge of the defect;
(2) such seller in the performance of any duties the seller performed, or was required to perform, could not have discovered the defect while exercising reasonable care;
(3) such seller was not a manufacturer of the defective product or product component;
(4) the manufacturer of the defective product or product component is subject to service of process either under the laws of the state of Kansas or the domicile of the person making the product liability claim; and
(5) any judgment against the manufacturer obtained by the person making the product liability claim would be reasonably certain of being satisfied.
(b) A product seller that is a retail seller of used products shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim arising from an alleged defect in a used product sold by the retail seller, if the retail seller establishes that:
(1) Such seller is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986;
(2) the product liability claim is for strict liability in tort; or
(3) (A) Such seller resold the product after the product was used by a consumer or other product user;
(B) the product was sold in substantially the same condition as it was when it was acquired for resale;
(C) the manufacturer of the defective product or product component is subject to service of process either under the laws of the state of Kansas or the domicile of the person making the product liability claim; and
(D) any judgment against the manufacturer obtained by the person making the product liability claim would be reasonably certain of being satisfied.
History: L. 1981, ch. 231, § 6; L. 2012, ch. 129, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Successor Corporations—Liability for Defects in Predecessor's Products—Stratton v. Garvey International, Inc.," Loren W. Moll, 33 K.L.R. 791, 804 (1985).
"Kansas Products Liability: Joint and Several Liability in the Chain of Supply and Distribution," William E. Westerbeke, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 22 (1991).
"Kansas Product Liability Law," Patrick A. Hamilton, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 6, 8 (2007).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Kansas product liability act; liability of counties for providing or selling certain chemicals. 86-173.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Seller of irrigation system with defective hose manufactured elsewhere liable for breach of warranty under UCC; cause of action accrued prior to enactment hereof. Stair v. Gaylord, 232 K. 765, 771, 772, 659 P.2d 178 (1983).
2. Evidence that importer and distributor of vehicle follows generally accepted principle of independently testing vehicle examined. Cunningham v. Subaru of America, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 1567, 1570 (D. Kan. 1988).
3. Retailer's exception considered; question of whether defect was obvious and whether retailer had duty to conduct certain tests. Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 713 F.Supp. 1389, 1390, 1392 (1989).
4. Products liability insurer of insured hay bales manufacturer not a "manufacturer" or "product seller" within meaning of act. Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 752 F.Supp. 989, 998 (1990).
5. Issue of material fact in strict liability case precluded summary judgment. Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 768 F.Supp. 769, 777 (1991).
6. Distributor did not satisfy condition of retailer exception under products liability act to be exempt; within definition of manufacturer. National Gypsum Co. v. Dalemark Industries, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 1476 (1991).
7. Whether exception to duty to warn applied to injured worker precluded summary judgment in product liability action examined. Stillie v. Am Intern., Inc., 841 F.Supp. 370, 376 (1993).
8. Whether material fact issue regarding whether company was manufacturer under KPLA precluded summary judgment examined. Davis v. U.S. Gauge, 844 F.Supp. 1443, 1445 (1994).
9. Whether seller may establish lack of knowledge of defect in product by alleging absence of defect examined. Stillie v. Am Intern, Inc., 850 F.Supp. 960, 963 (1994).
10. Fact issue regarding whether manufacturer knew clothing was noncompliant with federal flammability standards precluded summary judgment. Schoen by and through Schoen v. Spotlight Co., 979 F.Supp. 1379, 1382, 1385 (1997).
11. Granting of summary judgment to defendant retailer affirmed. Jackson v. Thomas, 28 K.A.2d 734, 21 P.3d 1007 (2001).
12. Action was not removable to federal court because nondiverse distributor was fraudulently joined. Cooper v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 320 F.Supp.2d 1154, 1158 (2004).
13. Distributor defendant held to be innocent seller was exempt from KPLA. Wheeler v. FDL, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (2004).
14. Lack of elements of seller's knowledge of defect and responsibility to discover not relevant; when. Gaumer v. Rossville Truck and Tractor Co., 41 K.A.2d 405, 202 P.3d 81 (2009).