60-4905. Same; premises owner liability. - Kansas Statutes

60-4905

Chapter 60.--PROCEDURE, CIVIL Article 49.--SILICA AND ASBESTOS CLAIMS ACT

      60-4905.   Same; premises owner liability.The following apply to all civil actions for silica or asbestosclaims broughtagainst a premises owner to recover damages or other relief for exposure tosilica or asbestoson the premises owner's property: (a) No premises owner shall be liable for anyinjury to anyindividual resulting from silica or asbestos exposure unless suchindividual's alleged exposureoccurred while the individual was at or near the premises owner's property.

      (b)   If exposure to silica or asbestos is alleged to have occurred beforeJanuary 1, 1972, it ispresumed that a premises owner knew that this state had adopted safe levels ofexposure forsilica or asbestos and that products containing silica or asbestos wereused on its propertyonly at levels below those safe levels of exposure. To rebut this presumption,the plaintiff mustprove by a preponderance of the evidence that the premises owner knew or shouldhave knownthat the premises were unreasonably dangerous to invitees and the premisesowner allowedthat condition to persist.

      (c) (1)   A premises ownerthat hired a contractor to perform the type of work at the premises owner'sproperty that the contractor was qualified to perform cannot be liable for anyinjury to any individual resulting from silica or asbestos exposure caused byany of the contractor's employees or agents on the premises owner's propertyunless the premises owner directed the activity that resulted in the injury orgave or denied permission for the critical acts that led to the individual'sinjury or knowingly allowed a dangerous condition caused by the contractor topersist.

      (2)   If exposure to silica or asbestos is alleged to have occurred afterJanuary 1, 1972, a premises owner shall not be liable for any injury to anyindividual resulting from that exposure caused by a contractor's employee oragent on the premises owner's property unless the plaintiff establishes thepremises owner's violation of an established safety standard that was in effectat the time of the exposure and that the alleged violation was in theplaintiff's breathing zone and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff'smedical condition.

      History:   L. 2006, ch. 196, § 5; July 1.