Although the statute speaks in terms of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud or malice, Kansas courts have generally recognized that gross negligence falls within the scope of these terms. See, e.g., Trendel v. Rogers, 24 Kan.App.2d 938, 942, 955 P.2d 150 (1998)(citing Tetuan v. A.H. Robins Co., 241 Kan. 441, 481, 738 P.2d 1210 (1987))(punitive damages may be awarded whenever the elements of fraud, malice, gross negligence, or oppression arise in a dispute). A finding of gross negligence is generally characterized by knowledge or awareness of the danger associated with negligent conduct.
Kansas courts have also recognized that reckless disregard provides a sufficient basis to impose punitive damages. Specifically, Kansas courts have recognized that a wanton act is [a]n act performed with a realization of the imminence of danger and reckless disregard or complete indifference to the probable consequences of the act. Cerretti v. Flint Hills Rural Elec. Co-op. Assn., 251 Kan. 347, 367, 837 P.2d 330 (1992). In other words, a wanton act is something more than ordinary negligence but less than a willful act. It must indicate a realization of the imminence of danger and a reckless disregard and indifference to the consequences. Id. at 368.
Taken together, these authorities indicate that reckless disregard or grossly negligent conduct is sufficient to support imposition of punitive damages. Thus, if the defendant acted negligently, and is aware, or should be aware, of the danger associated with such negligent conduct, then the defendants conduct may be characterized as grossly negligent and will provide a basis for the imposition of punitive damages. Similarly, if a defendant acts with reckless disregard for whether his or her actions will pose a danger to others, then his conduct is wanton and will be sufficient to support the imposition of punitive damages.
