Volume 243 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CIVIL PROCEDURE — <italic>Corruption of Evidence — Motion for New</italic> <italic>Trial — Denial of Motion — Appellate Review.</italic> The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a new trial, pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-259</cross_reference>(a)(<italic>Sixth</italic>) concerning corruption of evidence, where the evidence of subsequent injuries was not discovered before trial because both parties correctly considered such evidence irrelevant. 2. SAME — <italic>Newly Discovered Evidence — New Trial Motion —</italic> <italic>Denial of Motion — Appellate Review.</italic> The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a new trial, pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-259</cross_reference>(a)(<italic>Fifth</italic>) concerning newly discovered evidence, where the facts of the case show both that the evidence could have been produced by the use of due diligence and that such evidence would not have been admissible at trial. 3. SAME — <italic>Deposition Statements — Admissibility in Subsequent</italic> <italic>Unrelated Trial to Attack Witness Credibility.</italic> Pursuant to K.S.A. 1987 Supp. <cross_reference>60-232</cross_reference>(a)(1), deposition statements are admissible as evidence in a subsequent unrelated trial to attack the credibility of a witness by showing prior inconsistent statements. 4. TRIAL — <italic>Order in Limine — Violation of Order — Subsequent</italic> <italic>Overruling of Order to Allow Evidence of Prior Inconsistent</italic> <italic>Statements — Appellate Review.</italic> Under the facts of the case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excusing an appellee's violation of its order in limine and overruling the order to allow evidence of relevant prior inconsistent statements. 5. SAME — <italic>Frivolous Claim — Assessment of Attorney Fees and</italic> <italic>Costs — When Allowed.</italic> Two separate requirements must be met before attorney fees and expenses can be assessed pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-2007</cross_reference>(b): (1) The claim asserted was without reasonable basis in fact; and (2) the claim was not asserted in good faith. 6. SAME — <italic>Frivolous Claim — Assessment of Attorney Fees and</italic> <italic>Costs — Appellate Review.</italic> The trial court did not abuse its discretion, under the facts of the case, in imposing sanctions against the appellant pursuant to K.S.A. <cross_reference>60-2007</cross_reference>(b) and K.S.A. 1987 Supp. <cross_reference>60-211</cross_reference>. 7. TORTS — <italic>Jury Instructions on Punitive Damages and Reckless or</italic> <italic>Wanton Conduct — Sufficiency of Evidence to Support</italic> <italic>Instructions.</italic> There is insufficient evidence under the facts of the case to support a punitive damage instruction or an instruction on reckless or wanton conduct. 8. SAME — <italic>Personal Injury Caused by Elevator Doors — Jury</italic> <italic>Instructions Not Required on Theory Elevator Is a Common</italic> <italic>Carrier.</italic> The facts of the case do<page_number>Page 394</page_number> not support a holding that an elevator is a common carrier, and an instruction on a higher duty of care was thus properly denied. 9. SAME — <italic>Personal Injury Caused by Elevator Doors — Jury</italic> <italic>Instructions Not Required on Theories of Strict Liability,</italic> <italic>Intervening Acts, Hidden Defects, or Res Ipsa Loquitur.</italic> Instructions on strict liability, intervening acts, hidden defects, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were properly denied under the facts of the case.