Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 57 N.W.2d 659.

29 citing documents.

Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, vs. Borton Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 365; see also Messner v. Red Owl Stores
Isaac C. Johnson, et al v. Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a Pulte Homes, LLC, and d/b/a Pulte … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
Paul Boyum v. Federal National Mortgage Association "Fannie Mae", et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Messner v. Red Owl Stores , -62 (Minn. 1953).
Julie Strelow, et al v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julie Strelow, et al v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Messner v. Red Owl Stores, 238 Minn. 411, 413, d 659, 661 (Minn. 1953).
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 881; see also Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 238 Minn. 411, 415, (stating that landowner is not insurer of safety and that plaintiff in slip-and-fall case has “burden of proving either that [landowner] caused the dangerous condition or that [he] knew, or should have known, that the condition existed”); Rinn v. Minn. State Agric.
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
The district court correctly stated that a "plaintiff must prove the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition to establish a landowner's duty to use reasonable care.” (citing Messner v. Red Owl Stores, 238 Minn. 411, 415 , ).
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cf. Sutherland v. Barton -8 (Minn.1997) (electrified, exposed buss bars constituted dangerous condition); -31 (Minn.1977) (icy exterior stairway a dangerous condition); Messner v. Red Owl Stores Inc., 238 Minn. 411, 415 , (banana peels on floor a dangerous condition); Hansen v. City of St.
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Messner v. Red Old Stores, 238 Minn. 411, 413
Wolvert v. Gustafson 146 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1966
Wolvert v. Gustafson 146 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1966
1 See, for instance, Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 270 Minn. 101 , 132 N. W. (2d) 745 ; Behrendt v. Ahlstrand, 264 Minn. 10 , 118 N. W. (2d) 27 ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 ; Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 257 Minn. 290 , 101 N. W. (2d) 427 .
Bonniwell v. SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY 135 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1965
Bonniwell v. SAINT PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY 135 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1965
For this reason there is no need to prove that defendant had notice either actual or constructive and the exception noted in Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411, 413 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659, 661 , is in point: “* * * Unless the dangerous condition in the instant case resulted from, acts of defendant’s employes, defendant would be negligent only if its employes faded to rectify the dangerous condition after they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that t
Carter v. Western Union Telegraph Company 133 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1965
Carter v. Western Union Telegraph Company 133 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1965
1 See, Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 270 Minn. 101 , 132 N. W. (2d) 745 ; Hubbard v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. 221 Minn. 133 , 21 N. W. (2d) 229 ; Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 257 Minn. 290 , 101 N. W. (2d) 427 ; Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 .
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1965
They claim that the following cases are controlling and decisive of the issues on this appeal: Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 , as to constructive notice of a foreign substance; and Patterson v. Blatti, 133 Minn. 23 , , L. R. A. 1916E, 896, as to description of footprints of a foreign substance.
Lindgren v. Voge 109 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1961
Lindgren v. Voge 109 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1961
The cases so cited, which include Messner v. Red Owl Stores, *271 Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 ; Penny v. Sears Roebuck & Co. 193 Minn. 65 , ; Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 257 Minn. 290 , 101 N. W. (2d) 427 ; Bragg v. The Dayton Co. 212 Minn. 491 , 4 N. W. (2d) 320 , are not controlling of the circumstances presented in the instant case.
Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 101 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1960
Saari v. S. S. Kresge Co. 101 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1960
1 Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Lincoln v. Cambridge-Radisson Co. 235 Minn. 20 , 49 N. W. (2d) 1 ; Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 .
Cox v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 84 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 1957
Cox v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. 84 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 1957
Bank, 235 Minn. 232 , 50 N. W. (2d) 489 , where we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of an examination of an allegedly defective door made six months after the accident; and Messner v. Red Owl Stores, *191 Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 , where we held that the existence of a “shriveled up and dark brown” banana peel on a floor did not, in itself, indicate that it was on the floor long enough to put the defendant on constructive notice.
McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 77 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1956
McDonough v. Newmans Cloak & Suit Co. 77 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1956
Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411 , 57 N. W. (2d) 659 ; Smith v. Emporium Merc.