which reads in relevant part: “[I]f any person entitled to bring an action, other than for the recovery of real property or a penalty or a forfeiture, at the time the cause of action accrued or at any time during the period the statute of limitations is running, is less than 18 years of age, . . . such person shall be entitled to bring such action within one year after the person’s disability is removed . . . .” We are required to consider whether K.S.A. 60-515(a) is a tolling statute that applies only when a plaintiff needs to extend the statute of limitations under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-513, as Smith contends, or if, as the defendants contend, the legislature intended for certain plaintiffs who were minors at the time the cause of .2d 11 (1977), aff'd 224 Kan. 12, 577 P.2d 1172 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Seymour v. Lofgreen, 209 Kan. 72, 79, 495
holding that employers have standing to sue holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort recognizing a childs right to sue for wrongful death pursuant to ksa 60515 when mother could not sue because her statute of limitations had lapsed holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue for damages sustained within statute of limitations period by failing to sue on earlier incidents in timely manner