Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft
Decision Date | 23 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 53293,53293 |
Citation | 230 Kan. 368,634 P.2d 1127 |
Parties | Glynn Dean ALBERTSON, Appellee, v. VOLKSWAGENWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a foreign corporation; and Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Appellants. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 452, 618 P.2d 788 (1980), this court judicially adopted the system statutorily set out in K.S.A. 60-258a and applied it to actions in strict liability.
2. Strict liability in tort has a fault basis; therefore it may be compared with other fault concepts.
3. In an action brought before this court as a certified question, it is held : In a damage suit the doctrine of comparative fault requires all of the parties to the occurrence to have their fault determined in one action.
Robert L. Howard (argued) of Foulston, Siefkin, Powers & Eberhardt, Wichita, and Jerry G. Elliott and James D. Oliver, Wichita, on brief, for appellants.
Gerald Michaud (argued) of Michaud, Cordry & Michaud, Chartered, Wichita, and Richard D. Cordry, Wichita, on brief, for appellee.
This case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and comes to this court by certification from that court under authority of the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act. K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 60-3201 et seq. The certifying court shows by its order it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this suit and that the law of Kansas controls the substantive legal issues of the case. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We accepted certification.
On December 7, 1975, Glynn Albertson, while driving a 1961 Volkswagen van in Wichita, collided with a vehicle owned and driven by Vernon Travis. Albertson sued Travis in the District Court of Sedgwick County. Under a comparative negligence instruction to find 100% of the fault for Albertson's injury, the jury determined his damages to be $275,000, with 40% of the fault attributed to Albertson, and 60% to Travis. The judgment in the amount of $165,000 was entered against Travis and satisfied.
Albertson then filed suit against Volkswagen, manufacturer of the van, on November 18, 1975, in the U.S. District Court, alleging injuries and damages caused by a defective product but arising from the same collision with Travis which had been litigated in state court. Defendants contended the rules relating to comparative fault bar the suit against them and moved for summary judgment. At this juncture in the litigation, U.S. District Judge Frank Theis certified the following question to the Kansas Supreme Court:
"Having once obtained a satisfied judgment for a portion of his injuries in a comparative negligence action, may a plaintiff bring an action to recover damages for the remaining portion of his injuries against a defendant not a party to the first action, such second action being based on strict liability in tort?"
Judge Theis ruled collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the amount of Albertson's damages which were established at $275,000. Since Travis has already paid 60% or $165,000, plaintiff can recover a maximum of $110,000 in this action. Judge Theis then ruled collateral estoppel did not bar relitigation of the percentages of fault determined in the first action:
Since we deem the doctrine of comparative fault dispositive of the certified question, we need not respond to the collateral estoppel issue.
Albertson claims the injuries he suffered were enhanced and increased by design defects of the Volkswagen van under the theory of "second collision." He contends the design of the Volkswagen van was defective and dangerous in that the door handle would activate from the slightest contact; the door would open, and the occupant would be ejected. As a consequence, plaintiff suffered more substantial injuries than he would have in a properly designed crashworthy vehicle. He further argued the "second collision" theory was adopted in Larsen v. General Motors Corporation, 391 F.2d 495, 502 (8th Cir. 1968), by the United States Court of Appeals, where the court held:
Albertson contends by 1977 twenty-nine other jurisdictions had adopted the "second collision" theory as noted in Huff v. White Motor Corp., 565 F.2d 104 (7th Cir. 1977). He argues that although Kansas has not specifically adopted the theory, it has defined a manufacturer's duty in design of products:
"A manufacturer has the duty to use reasonable care in the design of his products so that they will be reasonably safe for their intended use, including any emergencies of use which can reasonably be anticipated." Garst v. General Motors Corporation, 207 Kan. 2, Syl. P 1, 484 P.2d 47 (1971).
It is Albertson's argument the holding in Garst, plus the adoption of strict liability in tort, Brooks v. Dietz, 218 Kan. 698, 545 P.2d 1104 (1976), is tantamount to adoption of the "second collision" theory. This court has never had occasion to rule on the availability of the second collision theory in Kansas. The nature of the question before us does not require that we do so now.
The issues which do deserve our attention are best premised by a brief discussion of the relevant Kansas law. K.S.A. 60-258a presents a logical place to begin. Standing alone, the comparative negligence act does not require all potentially liable parties be sued in the same action. The joinder provision is K.S.A. 60-258a(c) which provides:
"On motion of any party against whom a claim is asserted for negligence resulting in death, personal injury or property damage, any other person whose causal negligence is claimed to have contributed to such death, personal injury or property damage shall be joined as an additional party to the action."
This section applies only to defendants and is permissive. As usual, significant gaps remain in the legislative fabric of the law which, of necessity, have been filled by court decisions declaring legislative intent. Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 580 P.2d 867 (1978), presented the question of whether a plaintiff could avoid proportionate liability by suing only one of several tortfeasors. This court responded in the negative:
"(W)e conclude the intent and purpose of the legislature in adopting K.S.A. 60-258a was to impose individual liability for damages based on the proportionate fault of all parties to the occurrence which gave rise to the injuries or damages even though one or more parties cannot be joined as a litigant or be held responsible for his or her proportionate fault." p. 207, 580 P.2d 867.
Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236, 579 P.2d 1207 (1978), followed and the court made sweeping statements regarding the legislative intent of the act. It pointed out that the comparative negligence act provided the machinery "for drawing all possible parties into a lawsuit to fully and finally litigate all issues and liability arising out of a single collision ...." p. 237, 579 P.2d 1207. The court then concluded:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
...lawsuit or not. Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195 ; Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236, 579 P.2d 1207 (1978); Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 368, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981); and Lester v. Magic Chef, Inc., 230 Kan. 643, 641 P.2d 353 (1982)." (Emphasis added.) 232 Kan. at 212-13, ......
-
Mason v. Texaco, Inc.
...788 (1980) (comparative negligence principles are applicable to Kansas strict liability actions); Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 368, 373, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981) ("strict liability in tort does have a fault basis, therefore subjecting it to comparison with other faul......
-
Great Plains Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. K Bldg. Specialties, Inc.
...alleging injuries and damages caused by a defective product but arising from the same collision. In Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft , 230 Kan. 368, 369, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981), our Supreme Court answered the following certified question from the federal court:" ‘Having once obt......
-
Dodge City Implement v. Board of Com'Rs
...Kennedy, and it lacked the straddle across statutory change that made Kennedy awkward. In the case, Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 368, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981), a driver injured in a motor vehicle accident sued the other driver in state court. The jury allocated 40 pe......
-
Product Liability
...J.L.G. Indus., 454 N.E.2d 197 (111. 1983); Kansas: Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 618 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1980) and Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk, 634 P.2d 1127 (Kan. 1981); Louisiana: Bell v. Jet Wheel Blast, Civ. No. 83-CQ2158(La. 1985);Maine: Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, 471 A.2d 280 (Me. 1984), ......
-
Uninsured Underinsured Motorist Insurance a Sleeping Giant
...Court cases concerning the necessity of bringing all causes of action in one lawsuit, Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 368, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981) and Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236, 579 P.2d 1207 (1978), make it unadvisable to attempt such a maneuver. Although the arg......
-
A Review of the Kansas Comparative Fault Act
...Id. [FN16]. Id. at 237, 579 P.2d at 1208. [FN17]. Id. at 238, 579 P.2d at 1208. [FN18]. Id. at 236, 579 P.2d at 1209. [FN19]. Id. [FN20]. 230 Kan. 368, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981). [FN21]. Id. at 368, 634 P.2d at 1128. [FN22]. Id. at 369, 634 P.2d at 1128. [FN23]. Id. [FN24]. Id. at 374, 634 P.2d ......
-
Our Statutory System for Actual Damages in Tort Kansas in Wonderland
...in a single action. Eurich v. Alkire, 224 Kan. 236, 579 P.2d 1207 (1978); Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 230 Kan. 238, 634 P.2d 1127 (1981); Anderson v. Scheffler, 242 Kan. 857, 752 P.2d 667 (1988). [FN31]. K.S.A. § 60-19a02(d). [FN32]. K.S.A. § 60-249a. (a) In any action f......