Printable Format60-3307. Inadmissible evidence. (a) In a product liability claim, the following evidence shall not be admissible for any purpose:
(1) Evidence of any advancements or changes in technical or other knowledge or techniques, in design theory or philosophy, in manufacturing or testing knowledge, techniques or processes in labeling, warning of risks or hazards, instructions for the use of such product, if such advancements or changes have been made, learned or placed into common use subsequent to the time the product in issue was designed, formulated, tested, manufactured or sold by the manufacturer; and
(2) evidence of any changes made in the designing, planning, formulating, testing, preparing, manufacturing, packaging, warnings, labeling or instructing for use of, or with regard to, the product in issue, or any similar product, which changes were made subsequent to the time the product in issue was designed, formulated, tested, manufactured or sold by the manufacturer.
(b) This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of a subsequent measure if offered to impeach a witness for the manufacturer or seller of a product who has expressly denied the feasibility of such a measure.
History: L. 1986, ch. 214, ยง 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Products Liability: No Pain, No Gain. The Tenth Circuit Uses First Mini-Trampoline Lawsuit to Give Muscle to the Duty to Warn by Flexing the Duty to Test [Richter v. Limax Int'l, 45 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1995)]," Karen A. Eager, 35 W.L.J. 498 (1996).
"Strict Products Liability for Misrepresentation," William E. Westerbeke, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 6, 20 (1997).
"Kansas Product Liability Law," Patrick A. Hamilton, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 6, 8 (2007).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Unless controverted by defendant, evidence of subsequent design changes to illustrate feasibility is inadmissible. Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 862 F.2d 1404, 1410 (10th Cir. 1988).
2. Admissibility of evidence in products liability cases; crane manufacturer's remedial measures in form of warning labels after sale but prior to accident. Blackburn, Inc. v. Harnischfeger Corp., 773 F. Supp. 296 (1991).
3. Products liability action alleging that combine was unreasonably dangerous; foreseeable misuse; stipulation before first trial binding on retrial. Wheeler v. John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090 (1991).
4. On question certified (K.S.A. 60-3201 et seq.), manufacturer's post-sale duty to warn of recall and retrofit defective products examined. Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 Kan. 741, 751, 758, 759, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).
5. Whether postsale warranty manual issued by manufacturer is admissible for punitive damages purposes examined. Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F. Supp. 933, 941 (1994).
6. Unless offered as evidence of feasibility, subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove product defectiveness. Champlain Enterprises, Inc., v. U.S., 957 F. Supp. 26, 29 (1997).
7. Manufacturer could not be held strictly liable for failure to warn in products liability action. Messer v. Amway Corp., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1227 (2002).
8. Trial court has no discretion to admit evidence excluded by section; advances in design and testing not in existence at time of accident is barred. Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 280 Kan. 447, 124 P.3d 57 (2005).
Cross References to Related Sections:
Assignment of employee rights in inventions, see 44-130.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The New Kansas Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review Acts," David L. Ryan, 54 J.K.B.A. 53, 59 (1985).
"Trade Secrets in Kansas: What are They and How are They Protected?" Leo P. Dreyer, 59 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 23 (1990).
"The Roots of Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Patents, Trademarks and Copy Rights," Bruce Day and Mike Martinez, 62 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 30, 31 (1993).