Clay County jury rules in mixed liability fryer burn case
Erin Achenbach//January 14, 2026//
Summary:
- Jury found plaintiff 75 percent at fault in fryer burn case.
- Incident occurred when an unstable fryer tipped and spilled hot oil.
- Plaintiff suffered second- and third-degree burns and long-term impairments.
- Verdict included premises liability ruling and set-off from prior settlement.
A jury partially sided with the plaintiff in a personal injury case involving negligence in the workplace.
A $100,000 verdict was reached by a Clay County Circuit Court jury Nov. 5. The jury found the plaintiff 75 percent at fault. The verdict stems from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, Bryan Stotts, for the severe burns he suffered when hot oil spilled on him from a fryer at a Qdoba restaurant.
The plaintiff initially requested $800,000 from the jury for the injuries that occurred when a fryer that was missing a rear wheel and propped up by a pan unseen by Stotts tipped and spilled hot oil on him. Stotts was working for the Waldinger Corporation, who had been hired by defendant No. 1 Repair and Maintenance to perform service work at the Qdoba restaurant.
The plaintiff also claimed that one of the defendant’s cooks bumped into the fryer, causing it to come off the pan and spill the oil. The defendant alleged Stotts failed to check the oil temperature before working. He ultimately suffered second and third degree burns to his left arm and torso, resulting in reduced grip strength, range of motion, heat sensitivity and discomfort.
Stotts was represented by lead attorney Douglass F. Noland of the Noland Law Firm in Kansas City, along with Kate E. Noland. The defendants were represented by Corey L. Kraushaar, along with James Smart, of Brown & James in St. Louis. The case was tried before Judge Timothy Flook.
Stotts initially requested $800,000 from the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Qdoba on the negligence claim, and a plaintiff verdict for $400,000 on the premises liability claim before fault. It resulted in a net verdict of $100,00 before set-off from defendant No. 1 Repair’s settlement with the plaintiff.
Counsel had no additional comments.
RELATED: Click to search for and submit your Verdicts & Settlements
Negligence and premises liability
Amount of verdict: $100,000
Allocation of fault: 75 percent against the plaintiff
Breakdown and distribution of total value: Plaintiff requested $800,000 from the jury. Jury verdict for defendant on the negligence claim. Jury verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $400,000 on the premises liability claim before fault. Net verdict of $100,000 before set-off from co-defendant settlement with plaintiff
Type of action: Negligence and premises liability
Venue: Clay County Circuit Court
Case Number/Date: 23CY-CV10855, 11/05/2025
Caption: Bryan K Stotts v. Qdoba Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Qdoba Mexican Eats, and Number 1 Repair and Maintenance, LLC
Injuries alleged: Dermatological (burns, cuts, other external)
Injuries detail: Second and third degree burns to plaintiff’s left arm and torso, reduced grip strength and range of motion, sensitivity to heat, discomfort
Last pretrial demand: $250,000
Last pretrial offer: $60,000
Plaintiff’s attorneys: Douglass F. Noland and Kate E. Noland of the Noland Law Firm in Kansas City
Defendant’s attorneys: Corey L. Kraushaar and James Smart of Brown & James in St. Louis
Plaintiff expert(s): Dr. Daniel D. Zimmerman, a physician in Westwood, Kansas
Related Articles
Legal Tech
- New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
Latest Opinion Digests
- Insurance-Interpleader-Competing Claims to Insurance Proceeds
- Employer-Employee-Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment
- Criminal Law-Rape-Oral and Written Judgments
- Torts-Defamation-Official Immunity
- Real Property-Adverse Possession-Oral Agreement for Sale
- Domestic Relations-Termination of Parental Rights-Parental Unfitness
- Criminal Law-Violation of Order of Protection-Scope of Cross-Examination
Top stories
- Mother obtains six-figure settlement after rear-end crash leads to lifelong pain
- 8th Circuit affirms denial of preliminary injunction against SB 751
- New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Parity Act claim against insurer for child’s treatment survives motion to dismiss
- ABA opinion addresses client restrictions in engagement letters
- U.S. District Court allows plaintiffs to amend complaint alleging fraud
- AAA Insurance faces $21.5M bad faith verdict in Clay County
- Legal Limelight: Meghan S. Largent champions landowners in takings cases





