Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad, 104 N.W. 443.

51 citing documents.

Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Co., 95 Minn. 477 , (“Children, wher ever they go, must be expected to act upon childish instincts and impulses; and others, who are chargeable with a duty of care and caution towards them, must calculate upon this, and take precautions accordingly.”).
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
R.R., 95 Minn. 477, 488 , 104 N.W.
Gordon v. Hoffman 303 N.W.2d 250 Minn. 1981
Gordon v. Hoffman 303 N.W.2d 250 Minn. 1981
331 , 135 A.2d 395 (1957); Mattson v. Minnesota and N. W. RR, 95 Minn. 477 , 104 N.W.
Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
Pierson v. Edstrom 174 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, overruling Fitzgerald v. St.
Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
Krueger v. Knutson 111 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1961
R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , ; Mikel v. Aaker, 256 Minn. 500 , 99 N. W. (2d) 76 ; and 13 Dunnell, Dig.
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
That is precisely what we held in Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co. 95 Minn. 477, 488 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, where we said: “* * * The right of an infant to damages for injuries to his person caused by the wrongful act of others is a property right, and entitled to the same protection in the courts as is accorded other property held or owned by him.
Weasler v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 208 N.W. 657 Minn. 1926
Weasler v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co. 208 N.W. 657 Minn. 1926
Mattson v. M. & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477, 482 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am.
Hindal v. Kahler Corporation 208 N.W. 524 Minn. 1926
Hindal v. Kahler Corporation 208 N.W. 524 Minn. 1926
Mattson v. M. & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am.
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
Mattson v. M. & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am.
Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co. 193 N.W. 449 Minn. 1923
Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co. 193 N.W. 449 Minn. 1923
20 R. C. L. 80; Davidson *296 v. Otter Tail Power Co. 150 Minn. 446 , ; Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am.
Town of Flagstaff v. Gomez 202 P. 401 Ariz. 1921
Davidson v. Otter Tail Power Co. 185 N.W. 644 Minn. 1921
Davidson v. Otter Tail Power Co. 185 N.W. 644 Minn. 1921
Mattson v. Minnesota R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , L.R.A.
Erickson v. W. J. Gleason & Co. 176 N.W. 199 Minn. 1920
Erickson v. W. J. Gleason & Co. 176 N.W. 199 Minn. 1920
Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L.R.A.
Brennan v. Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co. 153 N.W. 611 Minn. 1915
Brennan v. Minnesota, Dakota & Western Railway Co. 153 N.W. 611 Minn. 1915
f the father would bar the boy from recovering, the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury; but, after full consideration, this court has determined that negligence of a parent is not imputable to his child and will not bar the child from recovering for injuries sustained through the negligence of a third party; Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L.R.A.
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
The rule in respect to dangerous explosives .requires a vigilance in safeguarding them commensurate to the character of the explosive and the danger to be apprehended therefrom, and has been applied and elucidated in the following cases: Clarkin v. Biwabik-Bessemer Co. 65 Minn. 483 , ; Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L.R.A.
Eckart v. Kiel 143 N.W. 122 Minn. 1913
Eckart v. Kiel 143 N.W. 122 Minn. 1913
*118 Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co. 95 Minn. 477, , 70 L.R.A.
Fox v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 141 N.W. 845 Minn. 1913
Fox v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 141 N.W. 845 Minn. 1913
R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L.R.A.
Juntti v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 138 N.W. 673 Minn. 1912
Juntti v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 138 N.W. 673 Minn. 1912
We are unable to discern any difference in principle between the case made *521 by the allegations of the complaint herein and the cases of Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L.R.A.
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
Vills v. City of Cloquet 138 N.W. 33 Minn. 1912
The doctrine of the so-called “turntable cases” is applicable, as was held by this court in the dynamite case of Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co. 95 Minn. 477 , .
Froeberg v. Smith 118 N.W. 57 Minn. 1908
Froeberg v. Smith 118 N.W. 57 Minn. 1908
Co., 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, 111 Am.
Anderson v. Smith 115 N.W. 743 Minn. 1908
Anderson v. Smith 115 N.W. 743 Minn. 1908
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L,.
Wiita v. Interstate Iron Co. 115 N.W. 169 Minn. 1908
Wiita v. Interstate Iron Co. 115 N.W. 169 Minn. 1908
Thus in Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R, A. 503, 111 Am.
Anderson v. Settergren 111 N.W. 279 Minn. 1907
Anderson v. Settergren 111 N.W. 279 Minn. 1907
682 ; Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, and note in 14 L. R. A. 675.
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 108 N.W. 517 Minn. 1906
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 108 N.W. 517 Minn. 1906
R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , , 70 L. R. A. 503, the plaintiff’s son, Hjalmar, recovered dam-áges for injuries received at the same time and by reason of the same explosion which caused the death of the child for the loss of whose services the present action is brought.
Slater v. Advance Thresher Co. 107 N.W. 133 Minn. 1906
Slater v. Advance Thresher Co. 107 N.W. 133 Minn. 1906
The rule is illustrated in Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , .
Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co. 104 N.W. 827 Minn. 1905