## Facts

- A two-car collision occurred at a street intersection in Wichita, Kansas.
- Britt Brown owned a Jaguar roadster that was being driven with permission by his son, Britt M. Brown.
- Patricia L. Keill drove the other vehicle involved in the collision.
- The reasonable cost to repair the Jaguar was \$5,423.
- Keill settled her own claims against the son outside of court.
- The father sued Keill only for property damage; Keill did not counterclaim or seek to join the son as a party.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas comparative negligence law limits a tortfeasor’s liability to their proportionate share of causal fault, eliminating common-law joint and several liability.
2. Whether fault must be determined and compared for all persons who contributed to the occurrence, including persons not joined as parties.
3. Whether, under K.S.A. 60-258a, a plaintiff may recover the entire loss from a minimally at-fault defendant when another participant bears most of the causal fault.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
- The trial court found: (1) the father was not negligent; (2) the son was 90% causally negligent; (3) Keill was 10% causally negligent; and (4) total damages were \$5,423.
- Judgment against Keill was limited to 10% of the total damages (\$542.30).
- The court held that joint and several liability does not apply in actions governed by K.S.A. 60-258a.
- The court held that the causal negligence of all participants must be determined and compared, even if a participant is not joined as a party.

## Legal Principles

- In comparative negligence actions under K.S.A. 60-258a, liability for damages is several and based on each tortfeasor’s proportionate share of causal fault.
- Joint and several liability among joint or concurrent tortfeasors is not available in Kansas comparative fault cases governed by K.S.A. 60-258a.
- The factfinder must allocate causal fault among all persons whose conduct contributed to the injury or damage, including nonparties, and a defendant’s monetary liability is limited to the defendant’s percentage of fault applied to total damages.
- A defendant’s failure to join another negligent person does not prevent allocation of fault to that person for purposes of limiting the defendant’s proportionate liability.

## Conclusion

Kansas comparative negligence law requires allocation of fault among all causally responsible persons and limits each tortfeasor’s liability to their percentage of total damages; therefore, an owner with no negligence could recover only the defendant’s 10% share of the repair costs, not the full loss.


Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 580 P.2d 867 (Kan. 1978)