Panel considers SB 463 to bar certain plaintiffs and revise negligent‑security duties
Loading...
Summary
SB 463 would bar persons engaging in wrongful conduct from recovering negligence damages, limit general damages for unauthorized aliens in auto accidents, and narrow negligent‑security duties for property owners. Supporters framed the bill as protecting consumers; opponents warned of broad exclusions, subrogation impacts and a 'one‑bite' rule for premises owners.
The Judiciary committee considered Senate Bill 463, which would prevent a person who engaged in or attempted wrongful conduct from bringing negligence claims or collecting certain damages. The bill also would limit recovery in some automobile‑accident claims involving persons described as "unauthorized aliens" and would change negligent‑security doctrine so owners owe a duty only when they have actual knowledge of substantially similar incidents within the prior year.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers Action Fund, testified in support and framed the measure as protecting consumers and small businesses from opportunistic suits by wrongdoers. Skinner said the bill aims to stop criminals from profiting by turning wrongdoing into a private litigation profit center.
Opponents — including David Marantz for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and Richard Budden of Schaumburg Johnson & Bergman — argued the bill is overbroad and would upend long‑standing Kansas comparative‑fault rules and subrogation systems. Marantz warned that the bill's definition of "wrongful conduct" could bar recovery in hypotheticals ranging from a driver with expired tags to intoxicated minors and could impair insurers', Medicaid's and victims' subrogation rights. Budden said subsection c's negligent‑security definition would sweep in premises‑liability claims and create a de facto "one‑bite" rule allowing owners to wait until someone is injured before acting.
The reviser explained SB 463's apportionment scheme and procedures for retrial when fault allocation is not properly made by the trier of fact. Supporters and opponents traded hypotheticals on whether Kansas courts and laws already address the concerns and whether the bill would create unintended constitutional or administrative consequences.
The reviser said the bill would apply to claims pending or filed on and after 07/01/2026. The committee closed the hearing on SB 463 without voting; lawmakers asked for additional clarity about scope and consequences.
