October 21, 2025
Dysart Taylor directors John Wilcox and Meghan Litecky recently secured a favorable ruling from the Kansas Court of Appeals affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of a motor carrier and its driver, finding that Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
In 2020, Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her roommate (“Driver”). The two were traveling on I-70 from Colorado to Wichita. Near Hays, Kansas, their vehicle was pulled over by a highway patrolman for suspected traffic violations. During this encounter, the trooper announced that he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Driver and Plaintiff sped off, resulting in a high-speed chase on eastbound I-70, involving several troopers, reaching speeds of 120 mph.
Thirty-eight miles into the chase, Driver attempted to avoid a tire deflation device and crossed the median, where she entered westbound I-70. Driver and Plaintiff did not stop but continued to flee, traveling east on westbound I-70. After nearly colliding head-on with several vehicles, Driver lost control of her vehicle, which then began spinning before striking the westbound tractor-trailer. Plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries.
Plaintiff brought suit in Kansas state court, alleging that the truck driver was negligent for failing to avoid her vehicle. She alleged that the motor carrier was vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver and was further liable under theories of negligent hiring, supervision and training. Plaintiff claimed damages of nearly $40M.
Plaintiff relied heavily on the opinion of her “expert,” who opined that according to “industry standard” the truck driver should have veered to his right rather than his left.
Dysart Taylor’s team of John Wilcox and Meghan Litecky filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2024. In granting the motion, the court accepted the argument that there was no foundation for the expert’s opinion. Further, the court accepted the argument that Plaintiff was engaged in a criminal conspiracy at the time of the wreck. Given this, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s actions and the imputed negligence of Driver were the proximate or legal cause of the accident. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
After briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that summary judgment is uncommon in negligence actions since they usually involve fact-intensive situations with conflicting viewpoints about what occurred. With that said, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court did not err when it determined that reasonable minds could not accept the opinions of Plaintiff’s expert. The Court of Appeals also agreed with the District Court that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the truck driver’s actions were the proximate cause of her injuries.