Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc., 261 N.W. 194.

54 citing documents.

Habeck v. Ouverson 669 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Habeck v. Ouverson 669 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Minnesota courts have long recognized section 339 as the successor to the attractive-nuisance doctrine to abolish the “idea of invitation * * ⅜ as condition precedent to liability in the case of young children injured.” Gimmestad v. Rose Bros., 194 Minn. 531, 536-37 , 261 N.W.
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Minnesota adopted section 339 in place of the attractive nuisance doctrine in order to abolish the “idea of invitation * * * as condition precedent to liability in the case of young children injured.” Gimmestad v. Rose Bros. Co., 194 Minn. 531, 537 , 261 N.W.
Croaker Ex Rel. Croaker v. MacKenhausen 592 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1999
Croaker Ex Rel. Croaker v. MacKenhausen 592 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1999
We held in Gimmestad v. Rose Bros. Co., 194 Minn. 531 , 261 N.W.
Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources 496 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1993
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 (1965); see Gimmestad v. Rose Bros. Co., 194 Minn. 531 , 261 N.W.
Hughes v. Quarve & Anderson Co. 338 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1983
Hughes v. Quarve & Anderson Co. 338 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1983
The trial court instructed the jury that Q & A’s duty as a landowner to Brian, a trespasser, was governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, adopted in Minnesota in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co., 194 Minn. 531 , 261 N.W.
Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
In Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531, 536 , this court adopted the rule applicable to this case now summarized in Restatement, Torts 2d, § 339, as follows : “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) the place where the co
Crohn v. Dupre 190 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
Crohn v. Dupre 190 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1971
rea made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and “(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.” This Restatement rule was adopted for Minnesota in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , , and has consistently been followed.
Gordon v. Engineering Construction Co. 135 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1965
Gordon v. Engineering Construction Co. 135 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1965
Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , .
Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 117 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1962
Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 117 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1962
failing to direct a verdict in favor of defendant and in failing to grant judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdicts for the plaintiffs.” It is agreed as stated in briefs of counsel and in their oral arguments that the controlling law is that which has been followed by this court since the attractive nuisance doctrine was discarded in this state in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , , and this court adopted Restatement, Torts, § 339, which reads: “A possessor of lan
Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
Since Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , , we have followed and applied Restatement, Torts, § 339, in a variety of cases.
Johnson v. Clement F. Sculley Construction Co. 95 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1959
Johnson v. Clement F. Sculley Construction Co. 95 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1959
children, and “(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling in it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition is slight as compared to the risk to young children involved therein.” The rule was adopted by this court in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , , and has become so well established in this state that we shall not attempt to set
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc. 89 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1958
3 Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 203 Minn. 456 , ; Weber v. St.
Knox v. City of Granite Falls 72 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1955
Knox v. City of Granite Falls 72 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1955
These tests were adopted by this court in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , , to replace the conventional attractive-nuisance doctrine and the misconceptions inherent in it.
Davies v. Land O' Lakes Racing Ass'n 69 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1955
Davies v. Land O' Lakes Racing Ass'n 69 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1955
See, Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 203 Minn. 456 , ; Weber v. St.
Dehn v. S. Brand Coal & Oil Co. 63 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1954
Dehn v. S. Brand Coal & Oil Co. 63 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1954
See, also, Schmit v. Village of Cold Spring, 216 Minn. 465 , 13 N. W. (2d) 382 , 154 A. L. R. 1325; Heitman v. City of Lake City, 225 Minn. 117 , 30 N. W. (2d) 18 ; Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. 194 Minn. 531 , .
Smith v. Otto Hendrickson Post 212, American Legion 62 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1954
Smith v. Otto Hendrickson Post 212, American Legion 62 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1954
See, Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 203 Minn. 456 , ; Weber v. St.
Doren ex rel. Doren v. Northwestern Baptist Hospital Ass'n 60 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1953
Doren ex rel. Doren v. Northwestern Baptist Hospital Ass'n 60 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1953
See, Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336 , 45 N. W. (2d) 563 ; Heitman v. City of Lake City, 225 Minn. 117 , 30 N. W. (2d) 18 ; Schmit v. Village of Cold Spring, 216 Minn. 465 , 13 N. W. (2d) 382 , 154 A. L. R. 1325; Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , .
Chase v. Luce 58 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1953
Chase v. Luce 58 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1953
These rules are found in Restatement, Torts, § 339; Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Weber v. St.
Meagher v. Hirt 45 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1951
Meagher v. Hirt 45 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1951
Our previous decisions in cases of this kind make it clear that this duty to exercise due care to eliminate conditions on real property which are hazardous to children is the same whether the person who creates the condition is an owner or a mere occupant of the property (Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co. 155 Minn. 293 , ; Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ), and also whether the child is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
Heitman v. City of Lake City 30 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1947
Heitman v. City of Lake City 30 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1947
Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; 38 Am.
Ewing Ex Rel. Ewing v. George Benz & Sons 28 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1947
Ewing Ex Rel. Ewing v. George Benz & Sons 28 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1947
Anthony Falls W. P. Co. 214 Minn. 1 , 7 N. W. (2d) 339 ; Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Henry v. Haussling, 114 N. J. L. 222, 176 A. 564 .
Harning v. City of Duluth 28 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1947
Harning v. City of Duluth 28 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1947
In Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531, 536 , , we said of the attractive nuisance theory: “ ‘“ * * It is but a convenient phrase to designate one sort of case within the ordinary rule that one is liable for injury resulting to another from failure to exercise, for the protection of the injured child, the degree of care commensurate with
Schmit Ex Rel. Schmit v. Village of Cold Spring 13 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1944
Schmit Ex Rel. Schmit v. Village of Cold Spring 13 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1944
In Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531, 536 , , we said of the attractive nuisance theory: “* * * xt is but a convenient phrase to designate one sort of case within the ordinary rule that one is liable for injury resulting to another from failure to exercise, for the protection of the injured child, the degree of care commensurate with a
Weber v. Saint Anthony Falls Water Power Co. 7 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1942
Weber v. Saint Anthony Falls Water Power Co. 7 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1942
The principles applicable here were stated and clarified recently in Gimmestad v. Rose Brothers Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 581 , , where we held, in accordance with the Restatement of Torts, that a possessor of land is liable to trespassing children where (1) the possessor knows or should know that the place is one where children are likely to trespass; (2) a condition maintained upon the premises involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such c
Johnson v. Colp 300 N.W. 791 Minn. 1941
Johnson v. Colp 300 N.W. 791 Minn. 1941
Gimmestad v. Rose Bros. Co. Inc. 194 Minn. 531 , ; Lund v. Springsteel, 187 Minn. 577 , .