Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Guile v. Greenberg, 257 N.W. 649.

61 citing documents.

Koehnle v. M.W. Ettinger, Inc. 353 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Koehnle v. M.W. Ettinger, Inc. 353 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , 257 N.W.
Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc. 209 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
The principal Minnesota case on which plaintiff relies is Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
Schmidt v. Beninga 173 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1970
See, In Re Estate of Olson, 227 Minn. 289, 301 , 35 N. W. (2d) 439, 447 ; Leifson v. Henning, 210 Minn. 311, 313 , ; Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 556 , .
Stephenson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 152 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1967
Stephenson v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 152 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1967
The defendant must show that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk, Guile v. *193 Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , appreciated it, Mayzlik v. Lansing Elevator Co., 241 Minn. 468 , Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co., 235 Minn. 20 , and, having opportunity either to incur it or avoid it, voluntarily chose to incur it.
Tatro v. Carlson 137 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1965
Tatro v. Carlson 137 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1965
That he had a choice to avoid the risk or chance it and voluntarily chose to chance it.” In Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 554 , , this court sets forth the elements of the defense as follows: “* * * In order that a defendant may avail himself of the doctrine of assumption of risk it must appear that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk, and that, having opportunity either to incur it or to avoid it, he voluntarily
Duffy v. Martin 121 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1963
Duffy v. Martin 121 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1963
3 Guile v. Greenberg (1934) 192 Minn. 548 , , involved a collision between a car pulling out from a parking place and a truck.
Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
Plaintiff argues that defendant’s negligence was gross, and in comparison, decedent’s only slight, and that contributory negligence is therefore effectively insulated, citing Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , , and Seward v. Minneapolis St.
Nadeau v. Melin 110 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1961
Nadeau v. Melin 110 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1961
All parties rely to some extent upon Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , , and Id.
Bush v. Havir 91 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1958
Bush v. Havir 91 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1958
Co. 246 Minn. 157 , 74 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Ryan v. Griffin, 241 Minn 91, 62 N. W. (2d) 504 ; Simon v. Carroll, 241 Minn. 211 , 62 N. W. (2d) 822 ; Donovan v. Ogston, 239 Minn. 553 , 59 N. W. (2d) 672 ; Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , ; 13 Dunnell, Dig.
Meyer v. Mitchell 80 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1957
Meyer v. Mitchell 80 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1957
11 Plaintiff relies on Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , ; but, see, Seward v. Minneapolis St.
Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
Zuber v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 74 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1956
Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , .
Lindgren v. Sparks 58 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1953
Lindgren v. Sparks 58 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1953
3 Plaintiff relies upon the case of Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , , in support of his claim that he did not assume the risks incident to the dangers of the position which he took and which he alone controlled.
Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc. 48 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1951
Lowen v. Pates, 219 Minn. 566 , 18 N. W. (2d) 455 , supra (written admission); Litman v. Peper, 214 Minn. 127 , 7 N. W. (2d) 334 , supra; Schmitt v. Emery, 211 Minn. 547 , 2 N. W. (2d) 413 , 139 A. L. R. 1242; Doyen v. Bauer, 211 Minn. 140 , ; Williams v. Jayne, 210 Minn. 594 , , supra; Quickstad v. Tavenner, 196 Minn. 125 , ; Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , ; Thorkeldson v. Nicholson, 145 Minn. 491 , , supra; McManus v. Nichols-Chisholm Lbr.
Rivera v. Mandsager 36 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1949
Rivera v. Mandsager 36 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1949
The troublesome question of contributory negligence was considered thoroughly as applied to the facts presented in Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , .
Grabow v. Hanson 32 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
Grabow v. Hanson 32 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1948
In Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 554 , , the general rule, which seems to be applicable here, is well expressed as follows: “* * * jn order that a defendant may avail himself of the doctrine of assumption of risk it must appear that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk, and that, having opportunity either to incur it or to avoi
Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
2 Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , ; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 ; Restatement, Torts, § 463; 38 Am.
Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
Eichten Ex Rel. Eichten v. Central Minnesota Cooperative Power Ass'n 28 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1947
Co. 154 Minn. 1 , ; Sporna v. Kalina, 184 Minn. 89 , , 76 A. L. R. 1280; Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360 , ; Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , ; Wedel v. Johnson, 196 Minn. 170 , ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
Johnson v. Evanski 22 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1946
6 Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 364 , ; Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 551 , ; Nees v. Minneapolis St.
Levasseur v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 21 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1946
Levasseur v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 21 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 1946
“* * * Regardless of how negligent plaintiff might have been, if his actions did not contribute to or were not a material element in the happening of the accident here involved, the defense of contributory negligence is not effective as against him.” Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 551 , .
Ranum v. Swenson 19 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1945
Ranum v. Swenson 19 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1945
2 Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 551 , .
Gillson v. Osborne 19 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1945
Gillson v. Osborne 19 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1945
“Regardless of how negligent plaintiff might have been, if his actions did not contribute to or were not a material element in the happening of the accident here involved, the defense of contributory negligence is not effective as against him.” Guile v. Greenberg, *128 192 Minn. 548, 551 , ; Restatement, Torts, § 463; 38 Am.
Garland v. Nelson 17 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1944
Garland v. Nelson 17 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1944
As stated in Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 553 , , 650: “* * ' * Kegardless of how negligent plaintiff might have been, if his actions did not contribute to or were not a material element in the happening of the accident here involved, the defense of contributory negligence is not effective as against him.” The plaintiff’s conduct must be a fact
O'Neill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 7 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1942
O'Neill v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 7 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1942
If the motorman was in any way misled or failed to see the tractor because of the direction in which its headlights cast their light, that condition might be a factor which caused or helped to cause the accident within the rule of Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548 , , and subsequent cases.
Malmgren v. Foldesi 3 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1942
Malmgren v. Foldesi 3 N.W.2d 669 Minn. 1942
Draft No. 10), comment to § 3, p. 11, is found this statement, among others, in respect to contributory negligence, “the plaintiff’s conduct must be a substantial factor operating with the defendant’s negligence in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.” This quotation is mentioned with approval in Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 551 , , where the late Mr. Chief Justice Devaney said that the problem of the alleged contributory negligence was one of proximate cause: “Regardless of how negligent
Gleason v. Sing 297 N.W. 20 Minn. 1941
Gleason v. Sing 297 N.W. 20 Minn. 1941
Guile v. Greenberg, 192 Minn. 548, 555 , .