DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Townsend, 261 N.W. 859.

52 citing documents.

  • Patrick Simondet, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    The emergency rule, as expressed in CIVJIG 25.16, is based on the supreme court’s decision in Johnson v. Townsend
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
    Louis Cnty., (quoting Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W.
  • W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
  • W.G.O. v. Crandall 640 N.W.2d 344 Minn. 2002
    See also Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W.
  • Lewellin Ex Rel. Lewellin v. Huber 456 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Lewellin Ex Rel. Lewellin v. Huber 456 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Louis County, (quoting Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W.
  • Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Thorn v. Glass Depot 373 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    *805 The emergency rule provides that “one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who, in the attempt to escape, does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice, unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W.
  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Byrns v. St. Louis County 295 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1980
  • Byrns v. St. Louis County 295 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1980
    The emergency rule provides that “one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who, in the attempt to escape, does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice, unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , 261 N.W.
  • Toetschinger v. Ihnot 250 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 1977
  • Emerson v. Eystad 181 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1970
  • Emerson v. Eystad 181 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1970
    nds that the emergency was not created by the one who seeks to invoke the rule.” See, also, Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394 , 95 N. W. (2d) 172 ; Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 241 Minn. 79 , 62 N. W. (2d) 492 ; Gran v. Dasovic, 275 Minn. 415 , 147 N. W. (2d) 576 ; Daly v. Springer, 244 Minn. 108 , 69 N. W. (2d) 98 ; Merritt v. Stuve, 215 Minn. 44 , 9 N. W. (2d) 329 ; Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , .
  • Gran v. Dasovic 147 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1966
  • Gran v. Dasovic 147 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1966
    See, Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , ; Oldendorf v. Eide, supra.
  • Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 121 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1963
  • Daugherty v. May Brothers Co. 121 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1963
    Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , , established the principle, often referred to as the “rule of the Townsend case,” that — “* * * one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
  • Lee v. Smith 92 N.W.2d 117 Minn. 1958
    That doctrine, correctly stated, is that “one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , .
  • Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
  • Kachman v. Blosberg 87 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1958
    He says he was in a tough spot, had to act quickly, and that because of this situation he was entitled to have the jury instructed on the emergency rule and its application in the terms approved by this court in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , .
  • Frank v. Stiegler 84 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1957
  • Frank v. Stiegler 84 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1957
    Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , ; Sanders v. Gilbertson, 224 Minn. 546 , 29 N. W. (2d) 357 .
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
  • Shastid v. Shue 77 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1956
    *325 It is an established rule of negligence law in Minnesota “that one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , ; Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , ; Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 200 Min
  • Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
  • Cook v. Person 74 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1956
    Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , .
  • Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 62 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1954
  • Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co. Inc. 62 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1954
    While the trial court did not give the emergency rule in the precise language stated in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , , we believe it was sufficiently stated and the jury was fully advised as to its proper application in the following language: “* * * if he [referring to defendant Sinna], after finding that these brakes did not work, was negligent in the way he operated or failed to operate his car and such negligence
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
  • Swanson v. LaFontaine 57 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1953
    This is a case for the application of the rule stated in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , ; and Cosgrove v. McGonagle, 196 Minn. 6, 13 , .
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
  • Kime v. Koch 35 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1949
    While the rule was not given in the precise language stated in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , , it was sufficiently stated by the court in the following language: “* * * you are instructed that where one is confronted with a sudden peril requiring instantaneous action, he is not in determining his course of action held to the exercise of the same degree of .care as when he has time for reflecti
  • Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
  • Sanders v. Gilbertson 29 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1947
    Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , ; Merritt v. Stuve, 215 Minn. 44 , 9 N. W. (2d) 329 .
  • James v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1944
  • James v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1944
    And see, Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107 , ; Blom v. Wilson, 209 Minn. 419 , .
  • Merritt v. Stuve 9 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1943
  • Merritt v. Stuve 9 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1943
    igence.” The correct rule as it has been approved by this court is as follows: “One, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , .
  • Nicholas v. Minnesota Milk Co. 4 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1942
  • Nicholas v. Minnesota Milk Co. 4 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1942
    Correctly stated, the emergency rule is that “one suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his wn, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so hazardous that the ordinarily prudent person would not have made it under similar conditions.” Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , .
  • Corridan v. Agranoff 297 N.W. 759 Minn. 1941
  • Dahlstrom v. Hurtig 295 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
  • Dahlstrom v. Hurtig 295 N.W. 508 Minn. 1940
    In the recent case of Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , , we stated the rule to be: “In that situation [sudden emergency] the law is that one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in *77 the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless it was so haz
  • Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 273 N.W. 665 Minn. 1937
  • Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 273 N.W. 665 Minn. 1937
    When Arnold observed the boy riding his bicycle off the driveAvay onto the alley, headed in that direction, it appears to us that the jury might well hai^e found that he Avas confronted with an *184 emergency through no fault of his own, and the jury should have been instructed as stated in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , , 861: “The law is that one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should
  • Dehen v. Berning 270 N.W. 602 Minn. 1936
  • Dehen v. Berning 270 N.W. 602 Minn. 1936
    This court in Johnson v. Townsend, 195 Minn. 107, 110 , , 861, stated the rule to be as follows: “In that situation the law is that one, suddenly confronted by a peril, through no fault of his own, who in the attempt to escape does not choose the best or safest way, should not be held negligent because of such choice unless, it was so hazardous that th