Univ., 253 Kan. 567, 861 P.2d 768 (1993)). To determine whether defendant owed a duty to warn plaintiff of the empty fuel loading arm, it is necessary to know 1) whether the empty fuel loading arm was a dangerous condition and 2) whether its potential dangers were latent or obvious. These facts are controverted and must be decided by the trier of fact at trial. Summary judgment is denied on plaintiffs duty to warn negligence claim. B. Duty to Train Kansas recognizes duty to train negligence claims. See Hendrix v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 203 Kan. 140, 453 P.2d 486, 496 (1969). The duty is to instruct and provide enough information “as is reasonable under the circumstances” so that a person may take “appropriate action.” Id. This duty typically exists in employer relationships. E.g. id. (<HOLDING>); Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan.
holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme holding that the court properly refused to instruct on an issue for which no evidence was offered holding that a manufacturer is under a duty to instruct a distributor