Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—KAN App.: $22 million verdict for worker upheld in skid steer crush injury case, (May 21, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A lower court did not err in denying the machine manufacturer’s motions for judgment as a matter of law because the latter’s warnings did not adequately convey the product’s latent danger.

In a suit brought against a skid steer manufacturer by a farm worker who was rendered a paraplegic after being crushed while riding on its front step, a Kansas appellate court affirmed a more than $22 million jury verdict against the manufacturer. The court held that the manufacturer’s statutory duty-to-warn defense did not eliminate liability merely because the worker knew he should not ride the machine, that factual issues existed as to whether the worker appreciated the specific latent danger of being crushed by the machine’s pinch point as opposed to understanding the general dangers associated with riding farm equipment, and that expert testimony establishing an industry standard of care was not required for a failure-to-warn claim (Kincaid v. Kubota Tractor Corp., No. 128,050 (Kan. App. May 15, 2026, unpublished)).

Background. A Kansas farmer purchased a Kubota SVL 90 compact track loader, commonly referred to as a skid steer, and leased it to his agricultural services company. In November 2013, three teenage farm workers were using the machine to install fencing in cold, muddy conditions in the middle of a field. To avoid trudging through deep mud and standing water, one worker drove the skid steer while two others caught rides on it. One of the workers (rider) sat on the front step used to access the operator cab. As the skid steer approached a ravine with standing water, the rider signaled for the operator to raise the loader arms. When the arms lifted, the mechanism pinned the rider between the grapple attachment and the cab overhang, compressing his spine and rendering him paraplegic. The skid steer carried several warnings, including labels inside the cab instructing operators to “Never carry riders,” to keep bystanders away, and to read the operator’s manual. The manual similarly warned users not to allow passengers to ride on any part of the machine. Another pictogram warned against riding in the bucket attachment while it was elevated. The injured worker sued the loader manufacturer, Kubota Tractor Corp., for failure to warn. The district court initially granted summary judgment to Kubota, but the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed after finding factual disputes regarding the worker’s knowledge of the danger. Following remand, a jury found Kubota 50% at fault and awarded $22 million in damages. Kubota appealed after the district court denied repeated motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

Legal standard. Under Kansas law, manufacturers generally have a duty to warn against reasonably foreseeable dangers associated with their products. Long v. Deere & Co., 238 Kan. 766, 772-73, 715 P.2d 1023 (1986), adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts §388. The Kansas Product Liability Act limits that duty where a reasonable user, considering his training, experience, education, and special knowledge, could and should have taken the relevant precautions himself. K.S.A. 60-3305(a).

Duty to warn. Kubota argued that it owed no additional duty to warn because the worker admittedly knew he was not supposed to ride on the skid steer and understood that riding the machine was unsafe. During cross-examination, the worker acknowledged that he knew the precaution to avoid injury was not riding the machine, that the machine was stronger than the human body, and that riding it was a “calculated risk.” The appellate court rejected the manufacturer’s argument that these admissions defeated liability. While the worker understood general dangers associated with riding farm equipment, including falling off or being struck by falling objects, the evidence did not establish that he knew of the specific pinch-point crush hazard involved in the accident. The worker testified that he did not appreciate that raising the loader arms while sitting on the front step could trap and crush his body between the loader assembly and the cab overhang. He explained that had he known of that particular hazard, he would not have ridden the skid steer. The court found this distinction significant because Kansas law requires manufacturers to warn of latent dangers that users may not reasonably appreciate. Citing Meyerhoff v. Michelin Tire Corp., 852 F. Supp. 933 (D. Kan. 1994), and American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., No. 12-2609-KHV, 2014 WL 2040158 (D. Kan. 2014), the court explained that even experienced users may fail to appreciate nonobvious hazards.

The court also rejected Kubota’s contention that K.S.A. 60-3305(a) eliminated any duty to warn once it instructed users never to carry riders. The statutory exception focuses on the reasonable user’s perspective, not merely the manufacturer’s issuance of a general warning. The court found support in Hiner v. Deere & Co., 340 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2003), where a jury question existed regarding whether a user appreciated the danger of a self-raising front-end loader despite understanding general risks associated with carrying hay bales. Multiple farmers testified that riding on farm equipment, including skid steers, was common and sometimes necessary to efficiently complete agricultural work. The worker similarly testified that riding the skid steer avoided a half-mile walk through freezing mud and standing water. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the worker, the appellate court concluded that reasonable jurors could differ regarding whether the worker appreciated the specific danger at issue. The district court therefore properly denied JMOL.

Expert exclusion. The manufacturer separately argued that the verdict could not stand because the worker failed to present expert testimony establishing the applicable industry standard of care for manufacturers of heavy agricultural equipment. The court rejected that argument as well. Kubota relied on general negligence cases requiring expert testimony where jurors would otherwise lack guidance regarding professional standards. But failure-to-warn claims differ because the adequacy of a warning is generally a question for ordinary jurors rather than specialized experts. Although the worker’s human factors expert testified extensively about warning labels and proposed an alternative label specifically identifying the crush hazard, she did not testify regarding an industry-wide standard of care for skid steer manufacturers. The appellate court held that such testimony was unnecessary. Citing Noll v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, No. 09-4092-KGS, 2011 WL 4526775 (D. Kan. 2011), and Dockhorn v. Kitchens By Kleweno, No. 08-2307-JAR, 2010 WL 1196425 (D. Kan. 2010), the court explained that Kansas law does not require expert testimony to prevail on a failure-to-warn claim because jurors are capable of evaluating warning adequacy themselves. As held in Humes v. Clinton, 246 Kan. 590, 606, 792 P.2d 1032 (1990), the adequacy of a warning is ordinarily a jury issue, and the jury’s verdict was thus upheld.

The case is No. 128,050.

Judge: Isherwood, P.

Attorneys: Jesse Tanksley (Mann Wyatt Tanksley) for Kolton Kincaid. James M. Armstrong (Foulston Siefkin LLP) for Kubota Tractor Corp.

Companies: Kubota Tractor Corp.

Cases: RemediesDamages Safety EvidenceDiscovery KansasNews