Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180613_0000871.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:45:52+00:00

Document:
FindACase | W.F.P. v. Buckle, Inc.
THE BUCKLE, INC., and MIDWEST CUSTOM CASE, INC., Defendants.
This matter is before the court on motions for partial summary judgment by The Buckle Inc. and Midwest Custom Case, Inc. (Docs. 43, 47.) The motions are ripe for decision. (Docs. 44, 45, 46, 48.) Defendants' motions are GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
The court finds the following facts to be uncontroverted for purposes of summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” when it is essential to the claim, and the issues of fact are “genuine” if the proffered evidence permits a reasonable jury to decide the issue in either party's favor. Haynes v. Level 3 Commc'ns, 456 F.3d 1215, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006). The movant bears the initial burden of proof and must show the lack of evidence on an essential element of the claim. Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). The nonmovant must then bring forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005). The court views all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2004).
Defendants contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts II and IV to the extent these counts seek damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress. Insofar as Alyssa and Mathew Pierce seek damages for loss of the services and companionship of W.F.P., Defendants point out that Kansas has refused to allow minor children to assert “parent/child consortium” claims arising from injuries to their parents or caretakers, and argue by analogy that Kansas would not allow a parent to recover for the loss of companionship of an injured child. (Doc. 44 at 5-7.) As for the claim by Alyssa and Mathew for emotional pain and suffering, Defendants argue Kansas rejects such claims where the parent “is not present at the scene, is not directly injured, and neither witnesses nor perceives the occurrence causing injury to the child.” (Id. at 7) (quoting Smelko By & Through Smelko v. Brinton, 241 Kan. 763, 773, 740 P.2d 591, 598 (1987)). Defendants contend neither parent meets this standard.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.