Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Theisen, 43 N.W.2d 272.

25 citing documents.

Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
to suggest that an innkeeper can never be held liable if the intervening act of the third person is, as here, an intentional criminal act.
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The facts of this case support a superseding-cause instruction because “[a]s a general rule, a willful, malicious, or criminal act breaks the chain of causation and is a superseding cause.”
Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kalberg v. Anderson Bros. Motor Co., 251 Minn. 458, 459-60 , -99 (1958); Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369, 372
Rullman v. Fisher 371 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rullman v. Fisher 371 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The general rule that a third person’s criminal act is an intervening efficient cause breaking the chain of causation, see Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , is not applicable when the criminal act is reasonably foreseeable, see Hilligoss v. Cross Cos., 304 Minn. 546
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
See Hilligoss v. Cross Companies, 304 Minn. 546 , Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369
Hage v. Stade 304 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1981
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co. 273 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1978
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co. 273 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1978
Kalberg v. Anderson Bros. Motor Co., 251 Minn. 458 , Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , Wannebo v. Gates, 227 Minn. 194
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Grain Belt Breweries, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1976
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Grain Belt Breweries, Inc. 245 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1976
In Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , *379 (1950), we confronted a case in which the accident happened while the thieves were fleeing the scene of the theft.
Hilligoss v. Cross Companies 228 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1975
Hilligoss v. Cross Companies 228 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1975
Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369
Gresser v. Taylor 150 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1967
Gresser v. Taylor 150 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1967
10 But, if the car’s movement was caused by someone releasing the brake, moving the gearshift lever, or both, our prior cases (Kalberg v. Anderson Bros. Motor Co. 251 Minn. 458 , 88 N. W. [2d] 197, and Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , 43 N. W. [2d] 272) holding that an owner or his agent who leaves the ignition in his car unlocked is not liable for injuries caused by the negligent driving of a thief are distinguishable on the ground that the cases cited involved intervention by means of a se
Wallinga v. Johnson 131 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1964
Wallinga v. Johnson 131 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1964
6 Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , 43 N. W. (2d) 272 , 35 Minn. L. Rev. 81 .
Dellwo v. Pearson 107 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1961
Dellwo v. Pearson 107 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1961
Co. 140 Minn. 91 , ; Foss v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 151 Minn. 506 , ; National Weeklies, Inc. v. Jensen, 183 Minn. 150 , ; Mickelson v. Kernkamp, 230 Minn. 448 , 42 N. W. (2d) 18 ; Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , 43 N. W. (2d) 272 .
Kalberg v. Anderson Bros. Motor Co. 88 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1958
Kalberg v. Anderson Bros. Motor Co. 88 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1958
Citing Wannebo v. Gates, 227 Minn. 194 , 34 N. W. (2d) 695 , and Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , 43 N. W. (2d) 272 , the defendant contended that the act of the thief was an intervening efficient cause which relieved the defendant from any negligence it might have incurred by failure to lock the car doors previous to the night of the theft.