Muir v. Cleveland University-Kansas City

── Muir v. Cleveland University-Kansas City ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 127,967 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STEPHANIE TUCKER MUIR, Appellant, v. CLEVELAND UNIVERSITY-KANSAS CITY, CLEVELAND CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE, CLEVELAND CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE, INC., CLEVELAND CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court; RHONDA K. MASON, judge. Oral argument held July 8, 2025. Opinion filed May 15, 2026. Affirmed. Joseph A. Kronawitter, J. Brett Milbourn, and Taylor P. Foye, of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant. Kevin D. Weakley and Kathryn M. O'Shea, of Wallace Saunders, Chartered, of Overland Park, for appellees. Before COBLE, P.J., ISHERWOOD and HURST, JJ. ISHERWOOD, J: Stephanie Tucker Muir filed a personal injury action against Cleveland Chiropractic College after she sustained a traumatic brain injury while using a popular sledding hill located on the grounds of the college's Kansas City campus. The college ultimately moved for summary judgment and argued that under the Kansas Land and Water Recreational Areas Act (KLWRAA), K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq., specifically under the recreational use statute (RUS) contained therein under K.S.A. 58-3204, an 1 owner of land who permits the public to use such property for recreational purposes incurs no liability for any injury to such persons caused by an act or omission of the owner. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cleveland University- Kansas City, Cleveland Chiropractic College, Cleveland Chiropractic College, Inc., and Cleveland Chiropractic College Condominium Association (collectively, Cleveland). In so doing, the district court found that Cleveland was insulated from liability by virtue of Kansas' recreational use statute (RUS). Tucker Muir brings this appeal contending that given the nature of her case, triable issues of material fact that called the applicability of the RUS into question remained unresolved at the time the district court entered its ruling. Thus, it was inappropriate to grant Cleveland's request for summary judgment. We have carefully analyzed Tucker Muir's claims in conjunction with the relevant KLWRAA provisions given the facts and circumstances of this case, and we are satisfied the district court arrived at the correct conclusion. The district court's decision to grant summary judgment in Cleveland's favor is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts of this case are fairly simple. In the winter of 2021, Tucker Muir joined friends and family members for a sledding outing to the grounds of Cleveland Chiropractic College, where a hill that was a decades-long popular sledding spot stood. Unfortunately, after descending the hill, Tucker Muir collided with a fire hydrant and sustained a traumatic brain injury. She subsequently filed suit against the college and its associated entities. The history related to these proceedings is decidedly more complex. 2 The preceding years Cleveland operates a chiropractic training school in Overland Park. The sledding spot at issue (Sledding Hill), is a long, wide, grassy hill located on the north side of the property. Cleveland was well aware that the public used the Sledding Hill in winter, as evidenced by several photographs and local news stories added as exhibits to the record. Cleveland staff did not prevent anyone from sledding, nor did they encourage sledding by invitation. They did not charge an admission price or fee of any kind for