Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'Brien v. American Bridge Co., 125 N.W. 1012.

33 citing documents.

State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
1 See, O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980; 13B Dunnell, Dig.
Campbell v. Siever 91 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1958
Campbell v. Siever 91 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1958
It then took the position, however, that the law as stated in O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.
Heise v. the JR Clark Co. 71 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1955
Heise v. the JR Clark Co. 71 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1955
2 O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 289 N.W. 563 Minn. 1939
Murphy v. Barlow Realty Co. 289 N.W. 563 Minn. 1939
In O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Wright v. Holland Furnace Co. Inc. 243 N.W. 387 Minn. 1932
Wright v. Holland Furnace Co. Inc. 243 N.W. 387 Minn. 1932
Schubert v. J. R. Clark Co. 49 Minn. 331 , , 15 L. R. A. 818, 32 A. S. R. 559; Holmvik v. Parsons B. C. & *268 S. F. Co. 98 Minn. 424 , ; Wolden v. Deering, 105 Minn. 259 , ; O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Moll v. Bester 225 N.W. 393 Minn. 1929
Moll v. Bester 225 N.W. 393 Minn. 1929
And see O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Howard v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railroad 214 N.W. 658 Minn. 1927
Howard v. Minneapolis & St. Paul Suburban Railroad 214 N.W. 658 Minn. 1927
See O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 136 Am.
Rengstorf v. Winston Brothers Co. 208 N.W. 995 Minn. 1926
Rengstorf v. Winston Brothers Co. 208 N.W. 995 Minn. 1926
Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 156 Am.
Goar v. Village of Stephen 196 N.W. 171 Minn. 1923
Goar v. Village of Stephen 196 N.W. 171 Minn. 1923
But even when this is shown, the maker will not be liable, if it is made to appear that the purchaser had knowledge of the defects at and before the third party was injured in using it.” Another decision especially valuable for its exhaustive consideration of applicable authority, is that in O’Brien v. American Bridge *240 Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 136 Am.
Rauscher v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 1017 Minn. 1922
Rauscher v. Great Northern Railway Co. 188 N.W. 1017 Minn. 1922
It is but one of many approved applications of the principle, first enunciated in Heaven v. Pender, L. R. 11 Q. B. Div. 503, and quoted approvingly in O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980, 136 Am.
Staley v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 172 N.W. 491 Minn. 1919
Staley v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 172 N.W. 491 Minn. 1919
334; O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Schlechter v. Felton 158 N.W. 813 Minn. 1916
Schlechter v. Felton 158 N.W. 813 Minn. 1916
The statement in O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364, 377 , , 32 L.R.A.
Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co. 145 N.W. 626 Minn. 1914
Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co. 145 N.W. 626 Minn. 1914
559; O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Brown v. Smith 141 N.W. 2 Minn. 1913
Brown v. Smith 141 N.W. 2 Minn. 1913
rcumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognize that, if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances, he would cause danger of injury to the person * * * of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.” O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364, 367 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Casey v. American Bridge Co. 134 N.W. 111 Minn. 1912
Casey v. American Bridge Co. 134 N.W. 111 Minn. 1912
See O’Brien v. American Bridge Co. 110 Minn. 364 , , 32 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Penas v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 127 N.W. 926 Minn. 1910
Penas v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 127 N.W. 926 Minn. 1910
And see later cases collected and discussed in O’Brien v. American Bridge Co., 110 Minn. 364 , .