Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Corrigan v. Elsinger, 83 N.W. 492.

47 citing documents.

Ann Massert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Corrigan v. Elsinger, the supreme court held that, “so long as [they] kept their place of business open to customers,” the owner and the proprietor of a department store owed a duty “to such customers to keep the [place of business] in a reasonably safe condition, and free from danger to personal injury.”
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition for visitors on the premises.” Niemann v. Northwestern College, 81 Minn. 42, -62 (Minn. App. 1986).
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
Although they are not parallel in their facts to this case, we call attention to the following cases as of illustrative value: Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 189 Minn. 523 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Duffy v. Stratton, 169 Minn. 136 , .
Daly v. Bergstedt 126 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1964
Daly v. Bergstedt 126 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1964
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , .
Lamb v. South Unit Jehovah's Witnesses 45 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1950
Lamb v. South Unit Jehovah's Witnesses 45 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1950
See, Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64 , ; Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Wheeler, 31 Minn. 121 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Folsom v. Hojny 26 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1947
Folsom v. Hojny 26 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1947
1045 ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , 83 N.W.
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 250 N.W. 362 Minn. 1933
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 250 N.W. 362 Minn. 1933
The following, though not parallel in their facts, are of illustrative value: Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Duffy v. Stratton, 169 Minn. 136 , ; Landy v. Olson & Serley S. & D. Co. 171 Minn. 440 , ; Poppleston v. Pantages M. T. Co. 175 Minn. 153 , ; Tierney v. Graves Motor Co. 185 Minn. 114 , 239
Merrill v. Morris Court, Inc. 231 N.W. 231 Minn. 1930
Merrill v. Morris Court, Inc. 231 N.W. 231 Minn. 1930
Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85 , , 34 L. R. A. 557, 54 A. S. R. 623; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Strunk v. Wells Brothers Co. 120 Minn. 77 , ; Mazey v. Loveland, 133 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 279; O’Keefe v. Dietz, 142 Minn. 445 , .
Hunter v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 230 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
Hunter v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 230 N.W. 793 Minn. 1930
468 ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , 83 N.W.
Powell v. Standard Oil Co. 210 N.W. 55 Minn. 1926
Powell v. Standard Oil Co. 210 N.W. 55 Minn. 1926
Co. 49 Minn. 457 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Schultz v. Schneckenberger, 81 Minn. 380 , .
Ober v. Golden Rule 178 N.W. 586 Minn. 1920
Ober v. Golden Rule 178 N.W. 586 Minn. 1920
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42, ; Albachten v. Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; McDermott v. Sallaway, 198 Mass. 517 , 85 N. E. 422 , 21 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Lundeen v. Great Northern Railway Co. 169 N.W. 702 Minn. 1918
Lundeen v. Great Northern Railway Co. 169 N.W. 702 Minn. 1918
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Klugherz v. Chicago, M. & St.
Boll v. C. S. Brackett Co. 158 N.W. 609 Minn. 1916
Boll v. C. S. Brackett Co. 158 N.W. 609 Minn. 1916
564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England Furniture Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Anderson v. Foley Bros. 110 Minn. 151 , ; Aarnes v. Great Northern Ry.
Zuponcic v. Val Blatz Brewing Co. 154 N.W. 790 Minn. 1915
Zuponcic v. Val Blatz Brewing Co. 154 N.W. 790 Minn. 1915
564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , 68 N W. 45 ; Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Bay v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Anderson v. Foley Bros. 110 Minn. 151 , .
Aarnes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 152 N.W. 866 Minn. 1915
Aarnes v. Great Northern Railway Co. 152 N.W. 866 Minn. 1915
If he had, he is liable.” In Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , , the rule is amplified as follows: “The test by which to determine whether the person who negli *471 gently causes injury to another was acting as an agent or employee of the person sought to be charged, or as an independent contractor, is, did the person so sought to be charged have the right to contr
Jewison v. Dieudonne 149 N.W. 20 Minn. 1914
Jewison v. Dieudonne 149 N.W. 20 Minn. 1914
Jewison v. Dieudonne 149 N.W. 20 Minn. 1914
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , .
Jewison v. Dieudonne 149 N.W. 20 Minn. 1914
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , .
Langdon v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 138 N.W. 790 Minn. 1912
Langdon v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 138 N.W. 790 Minn. 1912
The attention of the trial court was not directly called to any prejudicial statements, no ruling invoked, nor exception noted, and the case comes within the rule applied in State v. Frelinghuysen, 43 Minn. 265 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Ludwig v. Spicer, 99 Minn. 400 , .
Conway v. Charles H. Wood & Co. 129 N.W. 1045 Minn. 1911
Conway v. Charles H. Wood & Co. 129 N.W. 1045 Minn. 1911
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Hyatt v. Murray, 101 Minn. 507 , .
Larson v. Red River Transportation Co. 127 N.W. 185 Minn. 1910
Larson v. Red River Transportation Co. 127 N.W. 185 Minn. 1910
Under the rule in Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , , Carleton v. Franconia, 99 Mass. 216 , and Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind.
Stuelpnagel v. Paper, Calmenson & Co. 126 N.W. 281 Minn. 1910
Stuelpnagel v. Paper, Calmenson & Co. 126 N.W. 281 Minn. 1910
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Kelly v. Tyra, 103 Minn. 176 , , , 17 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Cressy v. Republic Creosoting Co. 122 N.W. 484 Minn. 1909
Cressy v. Republic Creosoting Co. 122 N.W. 484 Minn. 1909
That the master may be held responsible to licensees upon his premises for the wrong of an independent contractor, see Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42, 47 , or of a stranger, see Curran v. Olson, 88 Minn. 307 , , 60 L. R. A. 733, 97 Am.
Hyatt v. Murray 112 N.W. 881 Minn. 1907
Hyatt v. Murray 112 N.W. 881 Minn. 1907
Jaggard, Torts, 889; Emery v. Minneapolis Industrial Exposition, 56 Minn. 460 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Lauritsen v. American Bridge Co., 87 Minn. 518 , .
Ludwig v. Spicer 109 N.W. 832 Minn. 1906
Ludwig v. Spicer 109 N.W. 832 Minn. 1906
Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Schultz v. Schneckenberger, 81 Minn. 380 , ; Olson v. Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407, 409 , .