Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc., 51 N.W.2d 573.

29 citing documents.

Roger Stelter, et al v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Stelter, et al v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Res ipsa “rests upon inference and not on presumption.” Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 235 Minn. 471, 476, (citations omitted).
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Res ipsa “rests upon inference and not on presumption.” Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 235 Minn. 471, 476 , (citations omitted).
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
4 The trial court correctly observed that an essential prerequisite to the application of res ipsa loquitur is that the person to be charged have “exclusive control” of the instrumentality causing the harm, Boutang v. Twin City Motor Bus Co., 248 Minn. 240 , Johnson v. *863 Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc., 235 Minn. 471
Young v. Caspers 249 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1977
Young v. Caspers 249 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1977
apparatus or instrumentality whose nature is such that injury is not ordinarily to be expected in the absence of negligence; (2) at the time of the injury, both [instrumentality] and user must have been in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the injurious condition or occurrence must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of plaintiff.’ Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471, 476 , ” Since the patient was unconscious when the alleged negligent act occurred, it
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Frito-Lay Co. 243 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1976
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Frito-Lay Co. 243 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1976
by an apparatus or instrumentality whose nature is such that injury is not ordinarily to be expected in the absence of negligence; (2) at the time of the injury, both inspection and user must have been in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the injurious condition or occurrence must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of plaintiff.’ Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471, 476 , ” Regardless of whether the doctrine would be applicable in a case involving los
Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
Holten v. Parker 224 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 1974
n apparatus *174 or instrumentality whose nature is such that injury is not ordinarily to be expected in the absence of negligence; (2) at the time of the injury, both inspection and user must have been in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the injurious condition or occurrence must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of plaintiff.” Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471, 476
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Company 188 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 180 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1970
Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 180 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1970
ency of the evidence to justify the submission of the issue of negligence to the jury on the theory of res ipsa loquitur, contending (1) that the evidence did not eliminate the possibility of negligent mishandling when the bottle left its control and therefore did not meet the prerequisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur as set forth in Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 ; and (2) contending, in reliance on Larsen v. N. P. Ry.
Bossons v. the Hertz Corporation 176 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
Bossons v. the Hertz Corporation 176 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1970
Co. 255 Minn. *34 19, 95 N. W. (2d) 497 ; Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 ; Prosser, Torts (3 ed.) § 39.
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
Kerr v. Corning Glass Works 169 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1969
In Gardner and in Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 , we dealt primarily with the contents of the sealed containers there involved and relied upon the well-known results of mishandling.
Quigley v. Village of Hibbing 129 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1964
Quigley v. Village of Hibbing 129 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1964
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 ; Risberg v. Duluth, Missabe & I. R. Ry.
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Minnesota, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1964
The instruction pertaining to negligence substantially followed that indicated by this court in Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 .
Rinkel v. Lee's Plumbing & Heating Co. 99 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1959
Rinkel v. Lee's Plumbing & Heating Co. 99 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1959
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 .
Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
Johnson v. West Fargo Manufacturing Co. 95 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1959
2 The trial court instructed the jury in conformity with our established definition of res ipsa loquitur as set forth in Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 .
Hippe v. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. 59 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1953
Hippe v. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. 59 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1953
2 Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 235 Minn. 471 , 51 N. W. (2d) 573 ; Peterson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 207 Minn. 387 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.