LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Share this page RSS


Kansas Law BlogLegal updates, news, and commentary from the attorneys of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC

Frying the Frye Test and Increasing the Caps: New Amendments to Kansas Civil Actions and Civil Procedure

July 11, 2014 | Jonathan Benevides

Increasing non-economic damages cap

On July 1, 2014, amendments to K.S.A. 60-19a02 increasing Kansas's long-standing cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) recoverable in personal injury actions came into effect. The pre-amendment statute enacted in 1988 limited a plaintiff’s recovery of non-economic damages in a personal injury action to $250,000. The amended statute increases the limits for non-economic damages in personal injury actions as follows:

  • $250,000 for causes of action accruing from July 1, 1988 to July 1, 2014

  • $300,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2018

  • $325,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2022

  • $350,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2022

The amendment comes on the heels of the Kansas Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012) (link here). In Miller, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the $250,000 noneconomic damages cap contained in pre-amended K.S.A. 60-19a02, in the medical malpractice context. The court’s holding was based in part on the fact that due process constraints can be satisfied when the legislature provides an adequate substitute remedy, or “quid pro quo," when modifying common-law rights. The Miller court explained that as part of the quid qo pro analysis, the court must determine whether the legislature substituted an adequate statutory remedy for the modification to the individual right at issue. Miller, 295. Kan. 636, 657, 289 P.3d 1098, 1114. The court then noted that due to the reduction in buying power that accompanies inflation, the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages provided a less commensurate remedy than when the legislature set it in 1988. Miller, 295. Kan. 636, 658, 289 P.3d 1098, 1114. The Supreme Court warned that it is possible for a substitute remedy that was adequate when originally enacted to become inadequate over time because of inflationary effects and legislative inaction over time. Id. The amendment to K.S.A. 60-19a02 addresses the concerns raised by the court in Miller by increasing the cap on non-economic damages and providing for a gradual increase in the cap to account for inflationary effects.

Replacing Frye

K.S.A. 60-456(b) has been amended to mirror the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702. The amendment abolishes the Frye standard in favor of the familiar Daubert standard currently used in federal court. Under the Frye standard, when faced with a challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony, Kansas courts determined whether the expert’s methods were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. If so, the evidence was admitted with any deficiencies attributable to either the frailty of the underlying science or the expert’s qualifications, both matters of weight for the jury. With the amendment to K.S.A. 60-456(b), Kansas judges will assume the task of "gatekeeping," or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from scientific knowledge. This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and is the product of reliable principles and methods.  The trial judge must also ensure that the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See K.S.A. 60-456(b).

About Kansas Law Blog

Baker Sterchi's Kansas Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Kansas law on a broad range of topics that are of interest to Kansas practitioners and to businesses evaluating risks under Kansas law or managing litigation subject to Kansas law. Learn more about the editor, Bryan Mouber.


The Kansas Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.


Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Kansas Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Kansas Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.


For Important Legal Updates and Resources on the Coronavirus Click Here.