Court Opinion

ID: 9548660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:06:39.825338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:15.193090
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
dissenting: The court concedes the defendant’s conduct constituted acts of ordinary negligence. I cannot agree the *657negligence involved was passive in character. In my judgment, it was negligent conduct of active operation of the premises, or the management of the property, which subjected the plaintiff to increased hazards and dangers, and may be termed as an overt act of negligence. (Montague v. Burgerhoff, 150 Kan. 217, 92 P. 2d 98.) There was knowledge on the part of the defendant of the dangerous condition which amounted to a pitfall or trap, and a failure to warn. See my dissenting opinion in Ralls v. Caliendo, 198 Kan. 84, 89, 422 P. 2d 862.