Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 109 N.W. 114.

26 citing documents.

Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda 789 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 2010
The nuisance strict liability doctrine as stated by our court is: “a party who, for his own profit, keeps on his premises anything not naturally belonging there, the natural tendency of which is to become a nuisance, and to do mischief if it escapes, is liable if it escapes, without proof of negligence, for all damages directly resulting therefrom.” Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255, 260, 109 N.W.
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
The same rule was applied in Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , 109 N.W.
Sachs v. Chiat 162 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
Sachs v. Chiat 162 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
265, affirmed, L. R. 3 H. L. 330, and applied in our own decisions: Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 292 (324); Berger v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co. 60 Minn. 296 , ; Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , ; BridgemanRussell Co. v. City of Duluth, 158 Minn. 509 , .
Quigley v. Village of Hibbing 129 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1964
Quigley v. Village of Hibbing 129 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1964
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , ; Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of Duluth, 158 Minn. 509 , .
Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of Duluth 197 N.W. 971 Minn. 1924
Bridgeman-Russell Co. v. City of Duluth 197 N.W. 971 Minn. 1924
•It is clear that the pleader invokes the rule applied in the very similar case of Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , .
Winans v. Northern States Power Co. 196 N.W. 811 Minn. 1924
Winans v. Northern States Power Co. 196 N.W. 811 Minn. 1924
It is followed by this statement: “With the law as stated by the court and as laid down in the cases above quoted, the appellant, of course, must be content, but appellant strongly urges that this doctrine does not and cannot apply to the facts in this case.” The cases in question are Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , ; City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 113 Minn. 33 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 59, Ann. Cas.
Frasch v. City of New Ulm 153 N.W. 121 Minn. 1915
Frasch v. City of New Ulm 153 N.W. 121 Minn. 1915
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 225 , ; Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55 , , 33 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
Torgerson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 144 N.W. 154 Minn. 1913
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , .
State ex rel. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. City of Waseca 142 N.W. 319 Minn. 1913
State ex rel. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. City of Waseca 142 N.W. 319 Minn. 1913
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , ; Gordon & Ferguson v. Doran, 100 Minn. 343 , , 8 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Keever v. City of Mankato 129 N.W. 158 Minn. 1910
Keever v. City of Mankato 129 N.W. 158 Minn. 1910
Thus in Wiltse v. City of Bed Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , , a city operating the waterworks was held liable for water escaping from an embankment under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher; “for,” said Start, C. J., “although a municipal corporation, it was engaged in the business of supplying water to its inhabitants for profit, an undertaking of a private nature
City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls 128 N.W. 817 Minn. 1910
City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls 128 N.W. 817 Minn. 1910
The learned trial judge stated his reáson for overruling the demurrer in these words: “Even if, as defendant claims, the rule of absolute liability established by Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 292 [324], Knapheide v. Eastman, 20 Minn. 432 [478], Berger v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co., 60 Minn. 296 [ ] and Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 [ ] does not apply, I think the complaint brings the case within the rule res ipsa loquitur, as established in Waller v. Ross, 100 Minn. 7 [ , 12 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing 111 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1907
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing 111 N.W. 1134 Minn. 1907
This ease is controlled by Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , .
Gould v. Winona Gas Co. 111 N.W. 254 Minn. 1907
Gould v. Winona Gas Co. 111 N.W. 254 Minn. 1907
Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 255 , .