Gaumer v. ROSSVILLE TRUCK AND TRACTOR CO.
257 P.3d 292
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Gaumer purchased a used hay baler 'as is' from Rossville on June 3, 2003; the baler lacked a side safety shield.
- A week later the baler malfunctioned; Gaumer, observing through the shield hole, injured his arm when he stood, resulting in amputation.
- Gaumer asserted negligence (warn about danger, inspect before sale) and strict liability for selling a defective used product.
- District court granted summary judgment on negligence and strict liability; Court of Appeals affirmed on negligence but reversed on strict liability.
- The supreme court granted review on whether Kansas law permits strict liability against a seller of used goods, and held that common law governs this question alongside the KPLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the KPLA supersede common law on used-product strict liability? | Gaumer argues KPLA preempts common law. | Rossville contends KPLA governs all product-seller liability. | KPLA does not supersede common law. |
| May a seller of used products be strictly liable in Kansas? | Gaumer seeks strict liability against Rossville as a used-product seller. | Rossville claims no strict liability for used goods. | Yes, strict liability may apply to used-product sellers. |
| What governs the liability standard for used goods in Kansas? | Consumer expectations framework supports defect claims. | Risk-utility/other traditional standards should control. | Kansas uses consumer expectations with continued strict liability for used goods. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Dietz, 218 Kan. 698 (Kan. 1976) (adopted strict liability under Restatement § 402A for defective products)
- Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439 (Kan. 1980) (chain of distribution; purposes of strict liability)
- Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 233 Kan. 38 (Kan. 1983) (three elements for strict liability: defect, unreasonably dangerous, left control)
- Delaney v. Deere & Co., 268 Kan. 769 (Kan. 2000) (KPLA interaction with warnings; consumer expectations; design vs warning discussion)
- Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 Kan. 741 (Kan. 1993) (KPLA's limited reach; post-sale duty to warn discussed)
- Siruta v. Hesston Corp., 232 Kan. 654 (Kan. 1983) (three defects; rejection of open-and-obvious rule)