From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grey v. City of Topeka

Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Mar 16, 2018
413 P.3d 809 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018)

Summary

holding city's duty to maintain bridge and warn of hazardous condition was continuing and not barred by statute of repose, despite the hazardous condition being created more than ten years earlier

Summary of this case from Black v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

Opinion

No. 117,652

03-16-2018

Julie Kathleen GREY, Appellant, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, Kansas; Thomas F. Flanagan ; Shawn Bruns; Neil Dobler; Doug Whitacre; and Finney & Turnipseed, P.A., Appellees.

Eric Kjorlie, of Topeka, for appellant. Nicholas J. Jefferson, assistant city attorney, for appellees.


Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. Remanded with directions.


Summaries of

Grey v. City of Topeka

Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Mar 16, 2018
413 P.3d 809 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018)

holding city's duty to maintain bridge and warn of hazardous condition was continuing and not barred by statute of repose, despite the hazardous condition being created more than ten years earlier

Summary of this case from Black v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
Case details for

Grey v. City of Topeka

Case Details

Full title:Julie Kathleen GREY, Appellant, v. CITY OF TOPEKA, Kansas; Thomas F…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Date published: Mar 16, 2018

Citations

413 P.3d 809 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018)

Citing Cases

Black v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

The court notes, however, that plaintiffs have cited case law suggesting it would not. (See ECF 49, at 15…