benefit. We find that this federal doctrine as urged here imposes far too heavy a burden on class certification where the purported injuries to class members are so minimal as to preclude the likelihood they would be individually asserted. Although we have misgivings about the aseertainability doctrine’s use at the certification stage in any class action, we decline to consider its application in cases other than those involving low value co not benefit the chief goal of our court rules — the fair and efficient administration of justice; the Third Circuit’s experiences suggest the doctrine is practically unworkable in application and is being exploited by defendants in unsuitable cases to evade liability. See Hughes v. Kore of Ind. Enter., Inc., 731 P.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). In rejecting the applicability of the
recognizing that when what is small is not the aggregate but the individual claim  thats the type of case in which class action treatment is most needfulf and emphasizing that a class action has a deterrent as well as a compensatory objective holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action holding that class action was superior to individual suits where class members had relatively small interests and might not have the wherewithal to bring suit to protect their individual rights recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case