23 Kan. App. 2d 47 - Koger v. Ferrin’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2014
2 district · 6 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.
Relationships
Relies on Simon v. National Farmers Organization, Inc. · Falls v. Scott · Williams v. Amoco Production Co. · Berry v. Shell Petroleum Co. · Helms v. Eastern Kansas Oil Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A person who engages in an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for harm to tire property of another resulting from the activity, although that person exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. To establish liability based upon strict liability, the Plaintiff Class must prove Defendants’ remediation constituted an ‘abnormally dangerous activity’ as it relates to the Class. “Kansas law provides that strict liability applies to conduct involving contamination of water resources, because of the importance of clean, safe water. “In determining whether Defendants’ remediation is an abnormally dangerous activity, the following factors are considered: “(1) Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others from the activity; “(2) Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; “(3) Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; “(4) Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; “(5) Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and “(6) Extent to which the value of the activity to the community is outweighed by any dangerous attributes. “No single factor determines whether an activity is abnormally dangerous and you may assign whatever weight you decide is appropriate to each factor. In other words, the Plaintiff Class must prove that the remediation created a risk that was so unusual, either because of its magnitude or because of the circumstances surro”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.