66-232 & 234 simply provide for neghgence claims, we believe the “Fireman’s Rule” is apphcable to both of them. The Butlers further argue, however, that the Kansas legislature clearly intended to provide for causes of action in all cases of injuries resulting from fires caused by a railroad. Thus, they contend that the common law “Fireman’s Rule” does not apply to their statutory claim, or, if it does, the statute prevails. The Butlers argue that when a statute and common law conflict, the statute controls. See Board of County Comm’rs of Neosho County v. Central Air Conditioning Co., Inc., 235 Kan. 977, 683 P.2d 1282, 1285 (1984). However, this argument appears to logically depend on a statutory enactment that occurs subsequent to the common law rule in conflict. See id. at 1286 (<HOLDING>). In any event, we do not see the Fireman’s
holding that the statutes abrogated the common law recognizing that an agreement between the insurer and the insured can modify the common law make whole concept recognizing common law privileges holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest recognizing that the claim at issue was one under state common law between two private parties the experts in the federal system at resolving common law counterclaims  are the article iii courts