Martin v. City of Topeka

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the district court, holding that the Kansas Tort Claims Act does not abolish the public‑duty doctrine, that the doctrine does not bar Martin’s claim because a city’s street‑maintenance duty is owed to a specific class of street users, that genuine factual disputes exist as to breach and to the applicability of the discretionary‑function immunity, and therefore summary judgment was improper and the case was remanded for further proceedings.