In my work defending Kansas cities, counties, schools, and universities when accidents happen in parks, gyms, libraries, and similar spots, this new decision grabbed my attention.

Kansas Supreme Court: recreation immunity covers libraries and their parking lots

A visitor fell in a Johnson County library parking lot and sued.
The Court held the county is protected by the Kansas Tort Claims Act’s recreational-use rule, which applies to places meant for leisure activities, indoors or outdoors.

Plain-language takeaways

• Recreation is broader than parks or trails. A library qualifies because people visit to read, study, and attend programs.

• The shield reaches connected areas like sidewalks and parking lots if they serve the recreational space.

• To succeed, an injured visitor must prove the government acted in a grossly or wantonly unsafe way. Ordinary carelessness is not enough.

Bottom line: when you enjoy public spaces designed for recreation, the government is immune from a typical slip-and-fall claim unless its conduct was truly reckless.

Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Commissioners, No. 126,732 (Kan. June 27, 2025)

No, the legal privilege does not apply to all communications between a client and lawyer. There are several instances where the privilege would not extend to a communication between a client and his or her attorney. As stated above, the communication must be confidential. This means that the communication occurs solely between a client and his or her attorney unless an exception to that rule applies. If it is not confidential, then the privilege is waived. 

Additionally, there are attorney-client privilege exceptions under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. An attorney is obligated to follow these ethical rules. One exception provides that communications from clients seeking legal advice to further or plan a crime or fraud are not privileged. Another exception exists when litigation arises disputing a deceased client’s estate. Under this exception, privilege may be waived permitting the attorney to testify as to the nature of the deceased client’s wishes. Other exceptions permit attorneys to disclose information to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm as well as to prevent reasonably certain substantial financial or property injury to another. 

In LDG Rentals, LLC v. Western World Ins. Co., No. 23-cv-01216-TC (D. Kan. June 18 2025), a 125-year-old brick building in Coffeyville partially collapsed. The policy pays for an “abrupt collapse” caused by “building decay that is hidden from view, unless the presence of such decay is known to an insured prior to collapse.”

Western World asked for summary judgment, claiming:
• The structure was already damaged before the policy incepted, so it wasn’t “Covered Property”
• Any decay was visible, making the loss non-fortuitous and therefore uncovered under Kansas law Judge Toby Crouse denied the motion. Pre-collapse inspections by the buyers, their insurance agent, and an under-writing survey all reported no visible decay. That record created genuine disputes about (1) whether the building was damaged before the policy and (2) whether the collapse was truly a hidden-decay, fortuitous event. Those questions go to a jury.

Takeaway: In old-structure cases, coverage often turns on visibility and knowledge of decay. If “hidden” vs. “known” is
debatable, a fortuity defense won’t win on summary judgment.

Interrogatories may be repetitive, but the answers that you provide to an interrogatory are important. These answers provide the parties with the first set of facts surrounding the lawsuit. I may be able to learn a lot of information from what you send me, but interrogatories are a collaborative response for a reason. You, the client, were present when the incident happened, or you have adequate first-hand information about the incident. I do not, so I will need you to verify that the information is correct. Another reason your responses are so important is that these answers can be used to rebut or discredit your deposition or trial testimony. Once you are discredited, a jury has to decide whether or not to believe you. While the interrogatories and requests for production may seem redundant, these requests are important and should be answered promptly and in full.

Generally, the answer is NO. Attorneys and clients have a privilege afforded by law that allows our conversations to be confidential. This privilege allows clients to speak freely to their attorneys, so we know all of the facts to help our client with their legal issue. The attorney-client privilege and work product privilege that are provided in our conversations and letters disappear once a third party, including a family member, hears our discussion at the meeting or reads the letter that was sent to you. However, there are certain instances where this may be acceptable. If you have physical or mental needs that require an additional person to be present at our meetings to advocate for you, then the privilege may not be removed.