## Facts

- Douglas Samsel was catastrophically injured in a Riley County, Kansas automobile collision when a tractor-trailer crossed the center line; he became a quadriplegic.
- Samsel sued the driver, the trucking company, and the insurer in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking economic and noneconomic damages.
- Kansas law limited recovery for pain and suffering (noneconomic damages) in personal injury actions to $250,000 and required itemization of such damages while barring jury instructions about the cap.
- The federal district court certified to the Kansas Supreme Court whether the statutory cap violated §§ 5 (jury trial) and 18 (remedy/open courts) of the Kansas Bill of Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the $250,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages violates § 5 of the Kansas Bill of Rights by impairing the jury’s function in determining damages.
2. Whether the cap violates § 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights by denying an adequate remedy or restricting access to the courts.
3. Whether the legislature may modify common-law remedies by limiting recoverable noneconomic damages in personal injury actions.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and held the noneconomic-damages cap constitutional.
- The court concluded the cap does not violate § 5 because the jury still determines damages; the statute limits only the legally recoverable amount after the verdict.
- The court concluded the cap does not violate § 18 because it does not abolish the cause of action or bar access to court; it limits one component of recoverable damages while leaving other relief available.
- The court treated the cap as a permissible legislative policy choice aimed at legitimate public objectives related to the tort and insurance systems.

## Legal Principles

- The legislature may alter common-law remedies, including limiting noneconomic damages, so long as constitutional guarantees are not infringed.
- The Kansas jury-trial right protects the mode of trial and the jury’s fact-finding role, but it does not constitutionalize any particular measure or amount of damages.
- A damages cap that is applied after the jury’s assessment regulates the legal effect of the verdict rather than eliminating the jury’s determination.
- The Kansas remedy/open-courts provision secures access to a judicial forum and a legally recognized remedy, but it does not guarantee full recovery under prior common law.
- Limits on damages may be upheld when the cause of action remains available and the restriction bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate legislative purposes.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court upheld Kansas’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury actions, ruling that it preserves the jury’s role in finding damages and leaves meaningful access to court and remedy intact under §§ 5 and 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.


Samsel v. Wheeler Transp. Servs., Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 789 P.2d 541 (Kan. 1990)