¶1(dissenting): I find myself unable to concur in syllabus 2 and the corresponding part of the opinion. After a careful reading of G. S. 1935, 8-401, I am unable to persuade myself that the statute was intended to apply only to accidents upon the highways. I do not think a general reading of the entire act sustains that view either. My idea is that the legislature recognized what we all know, that is, that the automobile is a dangerous agency. In careless hands it kills people on the highways, driveways and in garages and sets fire to wheat fields and buildings. Because we see so many of them we are prone to lose sight of the fact that in the hands of careless drivers they are a menace. That, I think, is the reason the legislature enacted this statute so that one could not come into Kansas with an automobile which will leave a trail of death, devastation and destruction in his wake and escape liability because the injured parties would have to go to the driver’s home state to sue him.
164 Kan. 542
Kelley v. Koetting
Decided March 6, 1948
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1948-03-06
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1948-03-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 1967
2 district · 17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →