Kansas Supreme Court finds deeper meaning in pothole-triggered traffic accident

TOPEKA — Troy Alan Martin was northbound on Topeka Boulevard when his car struck a large pothole, jolting the vehicle with enough force that it slammed into a median, rolled several times and ejected him onto the street.

Martin, who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, survived the July 2, 2019, encounter with a crater big enough for an adult to place both feet inside. Because of injuries sustained in the crash, Martin filed a negligence lawsuit against the City of Topeka alleging it failed to reasonably maintain the road.

Shawnee County District Judge Jay Befort dismissed the civil case by granting summary judgment in favor of the city. A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals agreed with Befort, concluding the state’s public-duty doctrine barred Martin from seeking compensation. While the Court of Appeals declined to embrace Martin’s legal arguments, the judges concluded chuckholes were an “abysmal” plague.

On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court took a different route and unanimously reversed both lower courts.

Justice K.J. Wall’s written opinion said Kansas recognized since the early years of statehood that a city had a legal duty to keep streets in a reasonably safe condition. Depending on facts in a case, the opinion said, a city could be liable in a lawsuit alleging injuries resulting from disregard of that duty.

“Once a city opens a street and invites public travel, it owes that duty to those who travel the street in response to the invitation. The public-duty doctrine therefore does not bar a claim for breach of that duty,” the opinion reads.

The Supreme Court said questions to be resolved by a Shawnee County jury included conflicting views on whether the City of Topeka knew or should have been aware of the pothole and whether city employees had the opportunity to take reasonable steps to repair the roadway imperfection prior to the accident.

“Whether a street was reasonably safe for public use by travelers exercising ordinary care, whether a defect was discernible enough to call for repair and whether the city had notice of the defect are ordinarily questions for the jury,” the justices said.

The Supreme Court said it was improper for the district court and Court of Appeals to embrace summary judgment on behalf of the City of Topeka and against Martin when material facts of the case remained unaddressed.

During oral argument in May before the Supreme Court, Justice Caleb Stegall said a complexity in the case was that applicable Kansas statute was written in an ambiguous way. He said both sides in the case pointed to the same text while arguing opposite interpretations.

Under Kansas law, the Supreme Court said, “liability is the rule and immunity the exception” and that governmental entities claiming an exception must bear the burden of establishing it. Municipal governments invoke the public-duty doctrine when faced with lawsuits filed in response to actions of law enforcement officers.

Chloe Davis, a Topeka attorney representing Martin, said exclusions for police officers or sheriff’s deputies didn’t cover pothole negligence.

“If a private person would be liable for the underlying fact pattern, then the government should be liable for that same fact pattern unless it is excluded,” she said.

Nicholas Jefferson, an assistant city attorney in Topeka, said the responsibilities of a public entity and private individual were distinct.

“No individuals I’m aware of operate miles and miles of public streets,” Jefferson said. “A city is different from a private person. A city maintains a vast network of roadways. I think if the city does have notice of a specific road defect, I think that changes the argument.”

He said it would be financially difficult for municipal governments to maintain roads at a level that prevented formation of potholes.

Wall, during oral argument four months ago, foreshadowed the opinion released Friday.

“In some of the earlier cases,” the justice said, “they make clear that the city is not obligated to open a street, right? But, once it does, it has the power to assess and maintain those roads and comes with that a duty to keep that road safe for its intended purpose.”