Kansas Senate Bill SB413

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/8/26
• Introduced: 1/28/26
• Refer: 1/29/26
• Report Pass: 2/11/26
• Engrossed: 2/18/26
• Refer: 2/18/26

Caption

Prohibiting counsel from suggesting an amount of damages for noneconomic loss in civil actions.

Summary

SB 413 would restrict what attorneys and parties may say to a jury when asking for noneconomic damages in civil cases. The bill prohibits counsel from suggesting a specific dollar amount, a dollar range, a mathematical formula, a unit-of-time calculation, or other object/value comparisons that are not tied to the evidence presented at trial. In practical terms, it is aimed at limiting arguments that could anchor jurors to a particular damages figure for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or other noneconomic losses. The bill also includes a severability clause, meaning that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest can still remain in effect. It would become part of Kansas’s code of civil procedure and take effect upon publication in the Kansas Register. The measure is framed as a procedural rule for civil trials rather than a change to the underlying right to recover noneconomic damages.

Impact

SB 413 would amend Kansas civil procedure by limiting trial advocacy in civil actions involving noneconomic damages. It would affect litigants, attorneys, judges, and juries by barring damage-request techniques that use specific numbers, ranges, formulas, or unrelated comparisons to suggest an award amount. The practical effect is to constrain closing arguments and other jury-facing presentations in personal injury and other civil cases where noneconomic loss is at issue.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the Kansas Senate, passing final action 29-11. No committee transcript is available here, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments for or against the measure. The vote margin indicates the proposal was favored by a majority, though not unanimously, implying some division over whether the restriction is appropriate or too limiting on trial advocacy.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely whether the bill unfairly restricts attorneys’ ability to argue damages and persuade juries, versus whether it prevents speculative or emotionally manipulative requests for noneconomic awards. Supporters would view the bill as promoting fairness and reducing anchoring effects in jury deliberations, while opponents may argue it interferes with free advocacy and makes it harder to explain the value of pain-and-suffering claims. Because no transcript is provided, the specific positions of individual lawmakers or stakeholders are not documented in the available materials.