Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 69 N.W. 630.

38 citing documents.

Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Company 132 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1965
Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Company 132 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1965
Hacker v. Berkner 117 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1962
Hacker v. Berkner 117 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1962
Rozinka v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 231 N.W. 404 Minn. 1930
Rozinka v. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad 231 N.W. 404 Minn. 1930
Co. 67 Minn. 79, 81 , , the “unguarded condition” of the flywheel “and the risks incident thereto,” especially the possibility of putting one’s foot into it in mounting the car from the front, “were so perfectly plain * * * to the senses of any man of ordinary intelligence that it must be held that the plaintiff eit
Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 230 N.W. 125 Minn. 1930
Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co. 230 N.W. 125 Minn. 1930
Co. 67 Minn. 79 , ; Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Mfg.
Dusha v. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. 176 N.W. 482 Minn. 1920
Dusha v. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. 176 N.W. 482 Minn. 1920
In Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. 67 Minn. 79 , , it was held that the failure of an employer to respond to a statutory duty to guard dangerous machinery, did not change the rule of law as to contributory negligence and assumption of risks by one working about the unguarded machinery.
Falkenberg v. Partridge 144 N.W. 431 Minn. 1913
Falkenberg v. Partridge 144 N.W. 431 Minn. 1913
Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. 67 Minn. 79, 82 , .
Glockner v. Hardwood Manufacturing Co. 122 N.W. 465 Minn. 1909
Glockner v. Hardwood Manufacturing Co. 122 N.W. 465 Minn. 1909
In Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , , opinion by Mitchell, J., it was held that the mere fact that the statute imposed the duty to guard dangerous machinery did not change the rule of law as to contributory negligence or the assumption of risks.
Manks v. Moore 122 N.W. 5 Minn. 1909
Manks v. Moore 122 N.W. 5 Minn. 1909
See Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Dell v. McGrath, 92 Minn. 187, 190 , .
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 120 N.W. 360 Minn. 1909
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 120 N.W. 360 Minn. 1909
29; Ander *263 son v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79, 81 , , per Mitchell, J.; 1 Labatt, Master & Servant, § 76, and cases cited.
Bean v. Keller Manufacturing Co. 119 N.W. 801 Minn. 1909
Bean v. Keller Manufacturing Co. 119 N.W. 801 Minn. 1909
The case of Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , , declaring the defense available in such cases, has been too often followed and applied to be now departed from.
Davidson v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 119 N.W. 483 Minn. 1909
Davidson v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 119 N.W. 483 Minn. 1909
832; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Gray v. Commutator Company, 85 Minn. 463 , ; Seely v. Tennant, 104 Minn. 354 , ; Callopy v. Atwood, 105 Minn. 80 , ; Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Mnfg.
Seely v. Tennant 116 N.W. 648 Minn. 1908
Seely v. Tennant 116 N.W. 648 Minn. 1908
It was first announced in Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , , that the duty of guarding machinery did not change the rule of law as to contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
Schutt v. Adair 108 N.W. 811 Minn. 1906
Schutt v. Adair 108 N.W. 811 Minn. 1906
Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Mfg.
McGinty v. Waterman 101 N.W. 300 Minn. 1904
McGinty v. Waterman 101 N.W. 300 Minn. 1904
Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79, 82 , ; Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Mnfg.
Bernier v. St. Paul Gaslight Co. 99 N.W. 778 Minn. 1904
Bernier v. St. Paul Gaslight Co. 99 N.W. 778 Minn. 1904
Counsel for the defendant cites and relies upon the case of Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , , in support of his claim that the plaintiff in this case assumed the risk.
Dell v. McGrath 99 N.W. 629 Minn. 1904
Dell v. McGrath 99 N.W. 629 Minn. 1904
Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co., 57 Minn. 52 , ; Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Boyer v. Eastern Ry.
Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Manufacturing Co. 98 N.W. 645 Minn. 1904
Swenson v. Osgood & Blodgett Manufacturing Co. 98 N.W. 645 Minn. 1904
Anderson v. C. N. Nelson Lumber Co., 67 Minn. 79 , .
Lally v. Crookston Lumber Co. 85 N.W. 157 Minn. 1901
Lally v. Crookston Lumber Co. 85 N.W. 157 Minn. 1901
Anderson v. C. N. Nelson L. Co., 67 Minn. 79 , ; Scharenbroich v. St.
Soutar v. Minneapolis International Electric Co. 70 N.W. 796 Minn. 1897
Soutar v. Minneapolis International Electric Co. 70 N.W. 796 Minn. 1897
Anderson v. Nelson, 67 Minn. 79 , .