Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Blomberg v. Trupukka, 299 N.W. 11.

29 citing documents.

Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
They cite Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , 299 N.W.
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
Rausch v. Julius B. Nelson and Sons, Inc. 149 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1967
Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , .
Grussing v. Binger 114 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1962
Grussing v. Binger 114 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1962
Co. 92 Minn 122, ; Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , ; Tomczek v. Johnson, 110 Minn. 320 , ; McCutcheon v. Virginia & R. L. Co. 114 Minn. 226 , ; Dishington v. A. W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc. 255 Minn. 325 , 96 N. W. (2d) 684 .
Dawald v. Rocket Transfer Co. 109 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1961
Dawald v. Rocket Transfer Co. 109 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1961
Appellant relies on certain principles of law which are well stated *215 in Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523, 526 , , to the effect that: “* * * An act which exposes another to risk of injury only by his failure to conform to those rules of conduct for his own safety with which he might reasonably be expected to comply does not violate the standards of due care.
Dishington v. A. W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1959
Dishington v. A. W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1959
In Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523, 526 , , *333 13, this court appropriately said: “* * * An act which exposes another to risk of injury only by his failure to conform to those rules of conduct for his own safety with which he might reasonably be expected to comply does not violate the standards of due care.
Syverson v. Nelson 70 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1955
Syverson v. Nelson 70 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1955
2 On doctrine of assumption of risk, also see Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , ; Boyer v. Eastern Ry.
Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad 68 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1955
Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad 68 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1955
Thus, it cites as controlling authority Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , , where it was held that the defendant was not negligent in failing to warn a business visitor that a pile of metai siding ten, eight, and seven feet long weighing approximately 600 pounds, which the latter undertook to hold upright, would tip if permitted to get out of equilibrium, and Hetager v. Moran
Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 66 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1954
Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 66 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1954
5 See, Prosser, Torts, pp. 635 to 644; Restatement, Torts, § 343, comment d. 6 See, Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , ; Hutchison v. Hillside Cemetery Assn. 212 Minn. 242 , 4 N. W. (2d) 81 .
McDonald v. Fryberger 46 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1951
McDonald v. Fryberger 46 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1951
As stated in Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523, 526 , , 13: “* * * An act which exposes another to risk of injury only by his failure to conform to those rules of conduct for his own safety with which he might reasonably be expected to comply does not violate the standards of due care.” (Italics supplied.)
Johnson v. Johnston 33 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1948
Johnson v. Johnston 33 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1948
See, Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , .
Bemboom v. National Surety Corp. 31 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1947
Bemboom v. National Surety Corp. 31 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1947
741 ; Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , 299 N.W.
Mix v. City of Minneapolis 18 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1945
Mix v. City of Minneapolis 18 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1945
Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , .
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
Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , .
Hasse v. Victoria Co-Operative Creamery Assn. 3 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1942
Hasse v. Victoria Co-Operative Creamery Assn. 3 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1942
Appellant cites Blomberg v. Trupukka, 210 Minn. 523 , ; but we need not pass on the assumption of risk or the asserted contributory negligence, for to us it appears clear that there is no basis in this record upon which to charge defendant with negligence which caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injury.