Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co., 134 N.W. 313.

26 citing documents.

Anderson v. Winkle 5 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1942
Anderson v. Winkle 5 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1942
2 “The following cases are in accord: Klugman v. Schwartz, 186 Minn. 139 , ; Normandin v. Freidson, 181 Minn. 471 , ; Mix v. Downing, 176 Minn. 156 , ; Soper v. Erickson, 172 Minn. 377 , ; Rose v. Mooers Bros. Inc. 161 Minn. 149 , ; McNab v. Wallin, 133 Minn. 370 , ; La Pray v. *81 Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Widing v. Penn Mut.
McCartney v. City of St. Paul 233 N.W. 465 Minn. 1930
McCartney v. City of St. Paul 233 N.W. 465 Minn. 1930
La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Landy v. Olson & Serley Sash & Door Co. 214 N.W. 659 Minn. 1927
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 129 Minn. 81 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; Anderson v. D. & I. R. R. Co. 116 Minn. 346 , ; LaPray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Falk v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons 210 N.W. 75 Minn. 1926
Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons 210 N.W. 75 Minn. 1926
Appellant also claims that the evidence leaves the question of causal connection between the injury and alleged negligence a matter of conjecture only, as discussed in La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , 134 N.W.
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
McNamee v. Hines 184 N.W. 675 Minn. 1921
Co. 110 Minn. 308 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Murphy v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 122 Minn. 363 , ; Mitton v. Cargill Elev.
Moquist v. Larsen 182 N.W. 609 Minn. 1921
Moquist v. Larsen 182 N.W. 609 Minn. 1921
The rule applicable was well stated by Chief Justice Start in La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , , as follows: “If the evidence in a personal injury case leaves the question of causal connection between the alleged negligence and the injury a matter of conjecture only, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict; but it is not necessary to prove connection by ‘direct evidence.
Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 158 N.W. 42 Minn. 1916
Thompson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 158 N.W. 42 Minn. 1916
Co. 110 Minn. 308 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Demeree v. Minneapolis, St.
Hurley v. Illinois Central Railroad 157 N.W. 1005 Minn. 1916
Hurley v. Illinois Central Railroad 157 N.W. 1005 Minn. 1916
Co. 110 Minn. 308 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Demerce v. Minneapolis, St.
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 151 N.W. 539 Minn. 1915
Diebel v. Wolpert, Davis & Co. 151 N.W. 541 Minn. 1915
Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 151 N.W. 539 Minn. 1915
Co. 99 Minn. 34 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , 134 * ; Mitton v. Cargill Ele.
Diebel v. Wolpert, Davis & Co. 151 N.W. 541 Minn. 1915
Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co. 124 Minn. 65 , ; La Pray *81 v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , 134 N. W, 313; Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. infra, page 81, .
Hutchins v. Sleepy Eye Telephone Co. 147 N.W. 279 Minn. 1914
Hutchins v. Sleepy Eye Telephone Co. 147 N.W. 279 Minn. 1914
Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Anderson *365 v. Duluth & I. R. R. Co. 116 Minn. 346 , .
Lewis v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 145 N.W. 393 Minn. 1914
Lewis v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 145 N.W. 393 Minn. 1914
Co. 108 Minn. 100 , ; Healy v. Hoy, 115 Minn. 321 , ; La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , ; Murphy v. Twin City Taxicab Co. 122 Minn. 363 , .
Carver v. Luverne Brick & Tile Co. 141 N.W. 488 Minn. 1913
Carver v. Luverne Brick & Tile Co. 141 N.W. 488 Minn. 1913
Co. 114 Minn. 244 , ; Gilbert v. City of Tracy, 115 Minn. 443 , ; and La Pray v. Lavoris Chemical Co. 117 Minn. 152 , , which is a rule to guide the court in determining whether or not as a matter of law contributory negligence appears.