Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Medved v. Doolittle, 19 N.W.2d 788.

70 citing documents.

Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“[A] superseding, intervening cause is an act of plaintiff or of a third person, in no way caused by defendant’s negligence, or a force of nature, occurring after defendant’s negligent act or omission and operating as an independent force to produce the injury.” (quoting Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 357 , ) (emphasis in original).
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
See also Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The proximate cause of an injury is the act or omission which causes the injury “directly or immediately, or through a natural sequence of events, without the intervention of another independent and efficient cause.” Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 356-57
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 357
Hafner v. Iverson 343 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1984
Hafner v. Iverson 343 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1984
spended obstruction and therefore continued on, but “[i]t was lower than what I estimated it at.” “Generally speaking, a superseding, intervening cause is an act of plaintiff or of a third person, in no way caused by defendant’s negligence, or a force of nature, occurring after defendant’s negligent act or omission and operating as an independent force to produce the injury.” Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 356 , (emphasis in original).
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
Johnson v. Evanski, 221 Minn. 323, 328 , Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 356
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1977
Although evidence of available time and opportunity to stop is always relevant to driver negligence, Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, and Sims v. Hallett Construction Co., 247 Minn. 339 , expert testimony is not required.
Bonhiver v. Graff 248 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1976
Bonhiver v. Graff 248 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1976
That foolhardiness or stupidity does not mitigate in favor of the defendants.” In Minnesota intervening negligence, to be a superseding ef *119 ficient cause, must be “in no way caused by defendant’s negligence.” Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 357
Hughes v. Keller 224 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1974
Hughes v. Keller 224 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1974
Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides 2d, Instructions 142 G-S, 143 G, and 143 S; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 357 , Seward v. Minneapolis St.
Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis v. MacMillan 169 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1969
Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis v. MacMillan 169 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1969
In addition, defendants contend that notwithstanding MacMillan’s own negligence, the negligence of other drivers in the collision intervened and was a superseding cause which insulated defendant’s negligence, citing Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; and Sims v. Hallett Const. Co. 247 Minn. 339 , 77 N. W. (2d) 54 .
Mikes v. Baumgartner 152 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1967
Mikes v. Baumgartner 152 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 1967
Appellants rely for the main part on Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Cahill v. Peterson 151 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1967
Cahill v. Peterson 151 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1967
Co. 222 Minn. 454 , 25 N. W. (2d) 221 ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Larson v. Montpetit 147 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
Larson v. Montpetit 147 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1966
o extraordinary that, even with hindsight, it was not understood how the accident could have occurred); Robinson v. Butler, 226 Minn. 491 , 33 N. W. (2d) 821 (after defendant’s negligent passing caused plaintiff to pull off on right shoulder, where plaintiff had full control of car, plaintiff’s passenger negligently grabbed the wheel and caused car to go into the left ditch); Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 (driver saw parked truck in his lane when over Vk mile from it, re
Zylka v. Leikvoll 144 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
Zylka v. Leikvoll 144 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
Defendants urge us to recognize Sims v. Hallett Const. Co. 247 Minn. 339 , 77 N. W. (2d) 54 , and Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 , as controlling.
Wm. Mueller & Sons v. Chanhassen Redi Mix 140 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1966
Barclay v. O'DELL 123 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1963
Barclay v. O'DELL 123 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1963
11 Barrett v. Nash Finch Co. 228 Minn. 156, 161 , 36 N. W. (2d) 526, 529 ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 360 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788, 792 .
Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
Kellerman v. Nelson 122 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1963
In support of the argument that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the negligence, if any, of Alden Nelson was not a proximate cause of the collision here involved, defendants Nelson rely principally on Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Tandeski v. Barnard 121 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1963
Tandeski v. Barnard 121 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1963
Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; cf. Henjum v. Bok, 261 Minn. 74 , 110 N. W. (2d) 461 .
Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
6 Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Henjum v. Bok 110 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
Henjum v. Bok 110 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1961
5 Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Restatement, Torts, § 443; 13 Dunnell, Dig.
Knutson v. Nielsen 99 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1959
Knutson v. Nielsen 99 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1959
They therefore cite Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Sims v. Hallett Const. Co. 247 Minn. 339 , 77 N. W. (2d) 54 ; and Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , 30 N. W. (2d) 685 , as cases supporting their contentions.
Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
Sowada v. Motzko 98 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1959
We had occasion to examine the doctrine of superseding, intervening cause in Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352, 354 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788, 789 .
Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 96 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1959
Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 96 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1959
278; Sworski v. Colman, 204 Minn. 474 , ; Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 373 , ; Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 .
Sims v. Hallett Construction Co. 77 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1956
Sims v. Hallett Construction Co. 77 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1956
As to the Hallett Construction Company’s contention regarding superseding cause, we are controlled by Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 , wherein this court approved the statement in Kline v. Moyer, 325 Pa.
Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 74 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1956
Leman v. Standard Oil Co. 74 N.W.2d 513 Minn. 1956
Medved v. Doolittle, 220 Minn. 352 , 19 N. W. (2d) 788 ; Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479 , .
Peters v. Bodin 65 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1954