Court Opinion

ID: 9792164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:24:17.900401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.831100
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
concurring: As the majority opinion acknowledges, the district court’s summary judgment ruling was granted because the City had no written policy requiring an officer to arrest Totton or take him into custody. Thus, the district court reasoned, no duty was owed to the Woodruffs.
After discussing Fudge, quoting K.S.A. 75-6104(d), and citing Jarboe, the majority opinion says:
“Here, the Woodruffs acknowledge that the City did not have a written policy mandating that Totton be taken into custody under the circumstances. They assert that an unwritten policy to protect a third party was created when Officer Fitzgerald, the supervising officer, instructed Officer Weidl to observe Totton leave the club.”
I write to counter any inference that the Fudge rationale, as described in Jarboe, 262 Kan. 615, Syl. ¶ 1, may remain alive and well. The post-Fudge amendment in K.S.A. 75-6104(d) controls.