Michaelis v. Farrell
296 P.3d 439
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Jason Michaelis sued Gerald and Peggy Farrell for negligence after an electrical shock at the Farrells’ lake property in Missouri around July 2, 2005.
- A jury awarded damages but found Michaelis did not reasonably ascertain substantial injury until spring 2010, allowing recovery despite a 2-year limitations hurdle.
- The Farrells argued the action was time-barred under Kansas’ 2-year statute of limitations, and the trial court denied posttrial requests for judgment as a matter of law.
- Although the petition was filed in Kansas, Missouri law governed the cause of action; however, the statute of limitations defenses were governed by Kansas law (K.S.A. 60-513).
- The jury found damages and 50% fault apportioned to each side, with the verdict date on substantial injury set as spring 2010.
- The trial court and appellate court treated accrual under K.S.A. 60-513(b) as a contested issue for the jury to resolve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual standard under 60-513(b) | Michaelis contends accrual is fact-driven and disputed; the trial court properly submitted the issue. | Farrells argue accrual occurred when substantial injury first occurred or was reasonably ascertainable, with a threshold standard. | Issue for jury; material facts disputed; accrual not barred as of filing. |
| Substantial injury versus ascertainable injury standard | Evidence shows injury became ascertainable later, not at the incident. | Injury was immediate or promptly identifiable; threshold standard should apply. | Trial court properly left to the jury; not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Effect of jury instruction 8 on 60-513(b) | Instruction fairly stated the law and did not mislead; it tracked the objective standard. | Instruction omitted Roe’s interpretation and used a subjective timeframe, misguiding the jury. | Instruction 8 was substantially correct and not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Diefendorf, 236 Kan. 218 (Kan. 1984) (substantial injury requires actionable injury; accrual depends on ascertainable injury)
- Gilger v. Lee Constr., Inc., 249 Kan. 307 (Kan. 1991) (facts and circumstances govern accrual; jury questions when unsettled)
- Friends Univ. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 227 Kan. 559 (Kan. 1980) (discovery of cause does not toll accrual when injury evident)
- Roe v. Diefendorf, 236 Kan. 218 (Kan. 1984) (duplicate entry retained for emphasis)
- Hall v. Miller, 29 Kan. App. 2d 1066 (Kan. App. 2001) (mental condition scenarios may require jury determination of accrual)
- National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co., 290 Kan. 247 (Kan. 2010) (provides standard of review for judgments as a matter of law)
- KPERS v. Reimer & Roger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 110 (Kan. 1997) (test for accrual: when injury and act are reasonably ascertainable)