Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Heffter v. Northern States Power Co., 217 N.W. 102.

24 citing documents.

Raines v. Sony Corp. of America 523 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co., 173 Minn. 215 , 217, 217 N.W.
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
(1972); Swanson v. Chatterton, supra; Schulz v. Feigal, supra; Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , Jensen v. Linner, supra; Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital, 220 Minn. 274 , Quickstad v. Tavenner, supra; Johnson v. Arndt, 186 Minn. 253 , Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335 , Harju v. Allen, 146 Minn. 23 , Getchell v. Hill, supra; Dinnerstein v. U. S. 486 F. 2d 34 (2 Cir. 1973); Aetna Ins.
Bossons v. the Hertz Corporation 176 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. supra; Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Rule 43.06, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Okrina v. Midwestern Corporation 165 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1969
Defendant argues that the court may not properly apply the res ipsa rule if there is otherwise sufficient evidence to create a jury issue, relying on Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Johnson v. West Fargo Mfg.
Miller v. Raaen 139 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 1966
Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , ; Heffter v. *119 Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital, 220 Minn. 274 , 19 N. W. (2d) 426 , where we held the doctrine did not apply in a case involving a burn alleged to have been caused by a hot-water bottle.
Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
Jur., Negligence, § 303; Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 217 , ; Klingman v. Loew’s Inc. 209 Minn. 449 , ; Cullen v. Pearson, 191 Minn. 136 , , ; Anderson v. Eastern Minnesota Power Co. 197 Minn. 144 , ; Johnson v. Bosch, 178 Minn. 363 , .
Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 80 N.W.2d 30 Minn. 1956
1 Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N. W. (2d) 180 ; Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Sullivan v. Minneapolis St.
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc. 51 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1952
Speaking further with reference to the rule, this court said in Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 217 , , cited with approval in Risberg v. D. M. & I. R. Ry.
Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 47 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1951
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Kleinman v. Banner Laundry Co. 150 Minn. 515 , , 23 A. L. R. 479.
Risberg v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 47 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1951
In Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 217 , , a leading case, we stated: “* * * It is not the accident but the circumstances that justify the application of the doctrine.
Gill v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 36 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1949
See, Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , .
Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital 19 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1945
In Heff-ter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 218 , , this court stated: * * Nor does it [doctrine of res ipsa loquitur] apply where an unexplained accident may be attributable to one of several causes for some of which defendant is not responsible.” On the evidence in this case, we conclude that the doctrine has no application, and that plain
Olson v. Buskey 19 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1945
The facts as to the happening of the accident were fully disclosed by the evidence, and, under the authority of Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , , the doctrine is not applicable.
White v. Maurice L. Rothschild & Co. 11 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1943
The background of the res ipsa loquitur rule is deemed adequately stated and discussed in Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Cullen v. Pearson, 191 Minn. 136 , , ; Klingman v. Loew’s Incorporated, 209 Minn. 449 , .
Klingman v. Loew's Incorporated 296 N.W. 528 Minn. 1941
But, as we have said (Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 217, 218 , ): “It is not the accident but the circumstances that justify the application of the doctrine.
Ewald v. Hennepin Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church 274 N.W. 170 Minn. 1937
We approved this rule in Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215, 218 , .
Hector Construction Co. Inc. v. Butler 260 N.W. 496 Minn. 1935
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Kleinman v. Banner Laundry Co. 150 Minn. 515 , , 23 A. L. R. 479.
Borg & Powers Furniture Co. v. Clark 260 N.W. 316 Minn. 1935
hich has caused an injury, is shown to be under the management of the defendant charged with negligence, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if those Avho have the control use proper care, the accident itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that it arose from Avant of care.” Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , .
Cullen v. Pearson 253 N.W. 117 Minn. 1934
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , 217 N.W.
Willie v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 250 N.W. 809 Minn. 1933
Heffter v. Northern S. P. Co. 173 Minn. 215 , .
Nicol v. Geitler 247 N.W. 8 Minn. 1933
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , ; Heath v. Wolesky, 181 Minn. 492 , ; see Whitwell v. Wolf, 127 Minn. 529 , .
Hudson-Duluth Furriers, Inc. v. McCullough 235 N.W. 537 Minn. 1931
As to the effect of a prima facie case see Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , .
Johnson v. Bosch 227 N.W. 181 Minn. 1929
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 173 Minn. 215 , .
Heffter v. Northern States Power Co. 217 N.W. 102 Minn. 1927