Case Title: Wilson v. Probst

Citation: 224 Kan. 459, 581 P.2d 380

Docket Number: 49,348

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1978-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
224 Kan. 459 (1978)
581 P.2d 380
FRED WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN A. PROBST; ACID ENGINEERS, INC.; and HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants; MARGARET A. JOHNSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Gilbert Lee Thomson, Jr., Deceased, Defendant; and O.D. TURNER, Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas, Additional Party Defendant-Appellee.
No. 49,348

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 15, 1978.
Robin L. Wick, of Turner & Boisseau, Chartered, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the defendants-appellants.
Mark W. Krusor, of Christenson, Mathews & Taylor, of Winfield, argued the cause and was on the brief for the plaintiff-appellee.
Donald S. Simons, chief attorney, and Sara N. Langland, staff attorney, both of the Kansas Department of Transportation, were on the brief for the additional party defendant-appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing O.D. Turner, Secretary of Transportation, from the action on the grounds that the claim of highway defect was not based on negligence and, accordingly, could not be compared with the negligence of others under K.S.A. 60-258a.
*460 The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Gilbert L. Thomson, Jr., which collided with a vehicle owned by Acid Engineers, Inc., and driven by one of its employees, Steven A. Probst. The collision occurred on March 11, 1976. The plaintiff brought this action, based on negligence, against the estate of his deceased driver as well as Acid Engineers, Inc., and its employee, Steven Probst. Defendant Probst, in his answer, alleged that the State of Kansas was a necessary party for the purpose of comparing negligence. The alleged negligence of the State was based on claimed highway defects. On the motion of Probst, O.D. Turner, as Secretary of Transportation, was joined as an additional party defendant and was duly served. At no time did plaintiff make any claim against the Secretary. On motion of the Secretary, he was dismissed from the action on the grounds that a highway defect was not based on negligence and could not be compared with the negligence of others. From this order, defendants Probst, Acid Engineers, Inc., and Home Insurance Company appeal.
The issues on appeal are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1
The appellants urge the abolition of state governmental immunity, seeking reversal of Brown v. Wichita State University, 219 Kan. 2, 547 P.2d 1015 (1976). The court adhered to Brown in Whitmire v. Jewell, 223 Kan. 67, 573 P.2d 573 (1977), and continues to adhere thereto.
ISSUE NO. 2
K.S.A. 60-258a provides:
K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 68-419 provides:
The trial court, in determining that a highway defect was not based on negligence and was a strictly statutory liability, followed a long unbroken line of cases including the often-cited Payne v. State Highway Comm., 136 Kan. 561, 16 P.2d 509 (1932). The issue then becomes whether or not K.S.A. 60-258a compels a departure from the previous statutory construction when a defendant claims highway defects were a contributing cause of the collision and plaintiff's damages. It should be noted that K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 68-419 does not contain any reference to whether liability for a highway defect was or was not predicated on negligence. This determination arose by judicial interpretation. This interpretation met the needs prior to the introduction of comparative negligence into Kansas. The State and a negligent driver could both be named as defendants on differing theories and, with the concept of joint and several liability, it mattered little that the action against one defendant was predicated on negligence and the other was not. However, the concept of joint and several liability between joint tort-feasors has been held to no longer apply to comparative negligence actions in Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 580 P.2d 867 (1978). The individual liability of each defendant for payment of damages will be based on proportionate *463 fault, and contribution among joint judgment debtors is no longer required in such cases (Brown v. Keill, supra). The intent and purpose of the legislature in adopting K.S.A. 60-258a was to impose individual liability for damages based on proportionate fault of all parties to the occurrence which gave rise to the injuries and damages even though one or more parties cannot be joined formally as a litigant or be held legally responsible for his or her proportionate fault (Brown v. Keill, supra). The appellants contend that the claimed defects contributed to plaintiff's loss. In the context of comparative negligence, highway defects claimed to have contributed to the occurrence from which the injuries and damages arose must be compared to the alleged negligence of other parties if the intent of K.S.A. 60-258a is to be accomplished.
The plaintiff makes no claim against the Secretary and has not complied with the procedural prerequisites for maintaining such a claim. Accordingly, any percentage of fault attributable to the Secretary is lost to plaintiff as far as recovery is concerned. Any other defendant found at fault will be liable on the basis of percentage of fault found attributable to such defendant.
ISSUE NO. 3
O.D. Turner, Secretary of Transportation, was properly joined as a party defendant pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a(c). An additional party defendant in a comparative negligence action may not be dismissed from an action solely because of his immunity. It was, accordingly, error to enter the order of dismissal.
CONCLUSION
The judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to reinstate O.D. Turner, Secretary of Transportation, as a party defendant.
MILLER, J., dissenting to Syl. 4 and the corresponding part of the opinion.