60-220. Permissive joinder of parties. (a) Persons who may join or be joined. (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
(2) Defendants. Persons may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
(3) Extent of relief. Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities.
(b) Protective measures. The court may issue orders, including an order for separate trials, to protect a party against embarrassment, delay, expense or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-220; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 87; July 1.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 35, 36, 39; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 34, 35, 38; R.S. 1923, 60-410, 60-411, 60-414.
(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 266, 268; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 278, 280; R.S. 1923, 60-2902, 60-2904.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Class actions, 60-223.
Interpleader, see 60-222.
Intervention, see 60-224.
Misjoinder not ground for dismissal, see 60-221.
Necessary joinder of parties, see 60-219.
Separate trials, see 60-242 (b).
Substitution of parties, see 60-225.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Discussion of wrongful death act, Robert C. Casad, 13 K.L.R. 515, 516 (1965).
Mentioned as apparently authorizing certain joinder not permitted under old code, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 177 (1965).
Mentioned in connection with consolidation of "aggravation of injury" cases under K.S.A. 60-242 (a), 15 K.L.R. 109, 111, 112 (1966).
"Kansas Groundwater Management Districts," John C. Peck, 29 K.L.R. 51, 61 (1980).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-410, 60-411, 60-414, 60-2902, 60-2904 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Discussed; individuals suing for damages incurred in same collision do not have interest in same subject matter. Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 Kan. 231, 233, 398 P.2d 293.
2. Where no petition or other pleadings filed in trial court, court without authority to consider questions of law. Williams v. Smrha, 192 Kan. 473, 389 P.2d 756.
3. This section is procedural and furnishes no substantive law for determining who is a proper party defendant. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Kronewitter, 199 Kan. 228, 231, 428 P.2d 804.
4. When parties joined in the alternative, court has discretion not to require election by plaintiff among them; plaintiff entitled to have cause submitted to all of them. Virginia Surety Co. v. Schlegel, 200 Kan. 64, 65, 73, 434 P.2d 772.
5. Subsection (a) mentioned; claims of separate parties must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences before they may be joined in one action. McGregor v. Turner, 205 Kan. 386, 388, 389, 391, 469 P.2d 324.
6. County commissioners and county clerks in six consolidated tax protest cases held proper parties defendant. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Tieperman, 208 Kan. 252, 256, 491 P.2d 959.
7. County commissioners and county clerks in six tax protest cases consolidated are proper parties to appeal. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Tieperman, 208 Kan. 252, 256, 491 P.2d 959; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Jones, 208 Kan. 280, 281, 491 P.2d 945.
8. Liabilities of joint tortfeasor both joint and several; failure to join not basis for dismissal under K.S.A. 60-212. Froelich v. Werbin, 212 Kan. 119, 120, 122, 509 P.2d 1118.
9. Plaintiff allowed statute of limitations on fault theory (tort) against third party defendants; plaintiff can then recover from defendant only percentage of damages charged to defendant. Haysville U.S.D. No. 261 v. GAF Corp., 233 Kan. 635, 640, 666 P.2d 195 (1983).
10. Joining the plaintiffs' cases for trial held proper. Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009).
|