Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co., 66 N.W.2d 892.

41 citing documents.

James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The duty to use reasonable care “encompasses the duty of making the premises safe as to dangerous conditions or activities upon the premises of which he knows, or of which he ought to have knowledge in the exercise of reasonable care.”
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Zuercher v. N. Jobbing Co., 243 Minn. 166, 171
Erickson v. Curtis Investment Co. 432 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Erickson v. Curtis Investment Co. 432 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
at 293 , d at 647 (citing Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co., 243 Minn. 166, 171 , ) (emphasis added); see also Ponticas v. K.M.S.
Konovsky v. Kraus-Anderson, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1976
Konovsky v. Kraus-Anderson, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1976
In addition, it relies upon Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , for support in its conclusion that it had no duty to warn business visitors of danger either known or obvious in the exercise of reasonable care.
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Smith v. KAHLER CORPORATION, INC. 211 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1973
Defendant invited plaintiff to use its premises as a business visitor, Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , thereby owing to her an affirmative duty to protect her not only from dangers known to defendant but also from those which with reasonable care it might discover.
Munoz v. Applebaum's Food Market, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
Munoz v. Applebaum's Food Market, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , Berry v. Haertel, 284 Minn. 400, 405 , Restatement, Torts 2d, § 343 A(l); Instruction 333, Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides.
Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
Dempsey v. Jaroscak 188 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1971
In Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166, 171 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892, 896 , this court adopted the following definition of business visitor or invitee: “A business visitor is a person who is invited or permitted to enter or remain on land in the possession of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them.” This court
Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
See, also, Caballero v. Litchfield Wood-Working Co. 246 Minn. 124 , 74 N. W. (2d) 404 ; Heise v. J. R. Clark Co. 245 Minn. 179 , 71 N. W. (2d) 818 ; Davies v. Land O’ Lakes Racing Assn. 244 Minn. 248 , 69 N. W. (2d) 642 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Nygren v. Minneapolis St.
Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
Berry v. Haertel 170 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1969
See, Wolvert v. Gustafson, supra; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 .
Knutson v. Arrigoni Brothers Co. 147 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1966
Knutson v. Arrigoni Brothers Co. 147 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1966
Erickson v. Quarstad, 270 Minn. 42 , 132 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Syverson v. Nelson, supra.
Hanson v. Christensen 145 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1966
Hanson v. Christensen 145 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 1966
Other cases cited by plaintiffs in support of their claim that they are entitled to an affirmance are: Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Malmquist v. Leeds, 245 Minn. 130 , 71 N. W. (2d) 863 ; Heitman v. City of Lake City, 225 Minn. 117 , 30 N. W. (2d) 18 ; Brightwell v. Beem (Fla.)
Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company 144 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1966
1 Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166, 171 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892, 896 ; Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides, Instruction 333.
Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Company 139 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1966
Defendants rely on Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 , and Erickson v. Quarstad, 270 Minn. 42 , 132 N. W. (2d) 814 , in support of the assertion that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law.
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
2 See, Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Flynn v. Arcade Investment Co. 253 Minn. 107 , 91 N. W. (2d) 113 ; Dukek v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. 248 Minn. 374 , 80 N. W. (2d) 53 ; Gray v. First Nat.
Lieser v. Northern States Power Co. 128 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1964
Lieser v. Northern States Power Co. 128 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1964
See, Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; 13B Dunnell, Dig.
Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
Behrendt v. Ahlstrand 118 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1962
Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , .
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
Bank, 243 Minn. 442 , 68 N. W. (2d) 362 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Yeager v. Chapman, 233 Minn. 1 , 45 N. W. (2d) 776 , 22 A. L. R. (2d) 1260.
Meyer v. Mitchell 80 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1957
Meyer v. Mitchell 80 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1957
Bank, 243 Minn. 442 , 68 N. W. (2d) 362 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Yeager v. Chapman, 233 Minn. 1 , 45 N. W. (2d) 776 , 22 A. L. R. (2d) 1260.
Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
Schneider v. the Texas Co. 69 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
6 See, Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238 , 45 N. W. (2d) 395 ; Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 .
Schmanski v. Church of St. Casimir of Wells 67 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 1954
Schmanski v. Church of St. Casimir of Wells 67 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 1954
Our most recent decision on the duty owned by an owner or occupant of premises toward an invitee is Zuercher v. Northern Jobbing *293 Co. 243 Minn. 166 , 66 N. W. (2d) 892 .