Simmons v. Porter

Kansas Supreme Court · Torts

TortsComparative faultAssumption of riskEmployer-employee negligenceassumption of riskcomparative faultsummary judgmentsafe workplace

Facts

Simmons worked for Porter Farms as a farm truck and machinery mechanic and was injured while removing a leaking fuel tank from a pickup truck. He noticed the tank was secured with a plumbing strap and bailing wire rather than factory or replacement fastenings, worked under the truck with gasoline still in the tank, and used an incandescent shop light for illumination. While loosening the plumbing strap, the tank fell, gasoline spilled onto him, the shop light fell and shattered, and the gasoline ignited. Simmons sued, alleging Porter Farms failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace, and Porter Farms asserted assumption of risk as an affirmative defense.

Issue

Whether Kansas should retain the common-law assumption of risk doctrine as an absolute bar to recovery in employer-employee negligence cases not covered by the Workers Compensation Act, or instead require such cases to be decided under the comparative fault statute. Relatedly, whether summary judgment for Porter Farms could stand once that doctrine was rejected.

Rule

Kansas's comparative fault statute, K.S.A. 60-258a, controls negligence claims, and common-law assumption of risk no longer operates as an absolute bar to recovery in Kansas. Prior Kansas cases adhering to assumption of risk as a complete defense are overruled, and a plaintiff's awareness of danger is to be considered within comparative fault rather than as a total bar.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dodge City, Kansas, Elena Ruiz worked as a mechanic for Prairie Lantern Equipment, a small agricultural repair business exempt from workers compensation coverage for her job. She knew a grain hauler's hydraulic line was leaking and chose to inspect it while pressure remained in the system; the line burst and injured her face.

Elena sues Prairie Lantern Equipment for negligently failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The employer argues that because Elena knowingly and voluntarily confronted the danger, her claim is completely barred. How should a Kansas court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Kansas comparative fault, K.S.A. 60-258a, governs negligence claims and that common-law assumption of risk no longer operates as an absolute bar to recovery. In an employer-employee negligence case not covered by workers compensation, the employee's knowledge and voluntary exposure to danger may be relevant to apportioning fault, but it does not defeat the claim entirely. (Derived from Simmons v. Porter (n.d.).)