Opinion ID: 2590922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Is causation identical between the federal and state law claims?

Text: To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant violated a statute; (2) the violation caused plaintiff's damages; and (3) the legislature intended to create an individual right of action arising from the violation. Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, Syl. ¶ 3, 92 P.3d 584 (2004). Rhoten argues K.S.A. 8-1506 imposed a duty on Pase to activate his lights and siren when driving in violation of traffic laws. She argues Pase violated this duty when he drove at speeds in excess of 65 miles per hour on icy roads while pursuing Dickson. Applying this theory to the elements of negligence per se, Rhoten would have to establish Pase violated K.S.A. 8-1506 by failing to activate his lights and siren while speeding and his failure to activate his lights caused Rhoten's injuries. Causation under this theory is identical to causation under her second negligence claim because they both require a showing that Pase's inactions, or failure to activate his lights or siren, caused her injuries. The same analysis recited above applies here. Since the federal district court did not determine this issue, but instead analyzed the § 1983 claim under a danger creation theory, issue preclusion does not bar this theory of recovery. But since Rhoten's claims are barred completely under the claim preclusion doctrine, we do not reverse because the state district court and Court of Appeals erred in their issue preclusion analysis. The judgments of the district court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed. ROSEN, J., not participating. ELLIOTT, J., assigned.