Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 79 N.W.2d 688.

87 citing documents.

Joyce Walsh, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Mulder v. Parke Davis & Co., (stating that a “manufacturer of a chattel” may be liable if it “knows or should know that the chattel is apt to cause bodily harm if not used in a specific manner if [it] fails to furnish adequate warning as to the dangers inherent in its use”).
Patricia A. Jones, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Kaitlyn M. Jones (deceased) and Personal Representative … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 325, d 688, 693 (1956) (stating that a manufacture r may be liable “if he knows or should know that the chattel is apt to cause bodily harm if not used in a specific manner if he fails to furnish adequate warning as to the dangers inherent in its use”).
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Co., -24 (Minn.1986) (failure to warn that safe operation of a hydraulic press required proper installation of a functional safety bar); Frey, d at 786 (failure to warn that a space heater should not be used in house traders or in other poorly insulated and tightly enclosed spaces); Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 326-27 , (failure to warn of danger from operating a tractor in excess of the recommended speed).
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 325
Raines v. Sony Corp. of America 523 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Raines v. Sony Corp. of America 523 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Similarly, in Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 332 , the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine where there was substantial conflicting evidence about the cause of the injury.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Penney Co., Clark v. Rental Equipment Co., 300 Minn. 420 , McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319 , 79 *
Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota v. Dover Corp. 287 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1980
Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota v. Dover Corp. 287 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1980
See Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 307 Minn. 48 , Westerberg v. School District No. 792, 276 Minn. 1 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319
Parks v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 289 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1979
Parks v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. 289 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1979
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319 , Restatement of Torts 2d § 398 (1965); JIG II 403 G-S.
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Bigham v. J. C. Penney Co. 268 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1978
Clark v. Rental Equipment Co. Inc., 300 Minn. 420 , McCormack v. Hankscraft Co. Inc., 278 Minn. 322 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319
PMH PROPERTIES v. Nichols 263 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1978
PMH PROPERTIES v. Nichols 263 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1978
Stenzel v. Bach, supra; Jacoboski v. Prax, supra; Lovejoy v. Minneapolis Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
As we stated in Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co., 248 Minn. 319, 325 , : “ * * * If the manufacturer undertakes by printed instructions to advise of the proper use to be made of a chattel, he assumes the responsibility of giving accurate and adequate instructions with respect to the dangers inherent in its use in some other manner.” See, Johnson v. West Fa
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
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
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , we believe the record before us is sufficient to support a verdict of negligence as to both respondents.
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
Evanson v. Jerowski 241 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1976
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 2 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann., p. 314.
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688 .” 278 Minn. 331 , .
LaBeau v. Buchanan 236 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1975
LaBeau v. Buchanan 236 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1975
The standard relied upon in reviewing a lower court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a directed verdict was succinctly stated in Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319, 325 , quoting with approval from Hanson v. Homeland Ins.
Adrian v. Edstrom 229 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
Adrian v. Edstrom 229 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1975
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power *56 Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319
Lundeen v. Renteria 224 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1974
Lundeen v. Renteria 224 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1974
Clark v. RENTAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 220 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1974
Clark v. RENTAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. 220 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1974
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , Hartmon v. National Heater *427 Co. 240 Minn. 264
Usher v. Allstate Insurance Company 218 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1974
Usher v. Allstate Insurance Company 218 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 1974
Co. 248 Minn. 319, 325 , 79 N. W. (2d) 688, 693 , this court expressed the test for granting a motion for a directed verdict as follows: “ * * [I] t is elementary that a motion for a directed verdict— “ ‘ “* * * accepts the view of the entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party and admits the credibility (except in *54 extreme
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
See, also, Ford v. Stevens, 280 Minn. 16 , Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319
Kastner v. Wermerskirschen 205 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
Kastner v. Wermerskirschen 205 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1973
Co. 248 Minn. 319 , Hanson v. Homeland Ins.
Stenzel v. Bach 203 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1973
Stenzel v. Bach 203 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1973
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus 203 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1973
E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. v. Primus 203 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1973
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319, 325
Ismil v. LH Sowles Company 203 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1972
Ismil v. LH Sowles Company 203 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1972
Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 248 Minn. 319
Winge v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Company 201 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1972
Winge v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Company 201 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1972
Jacoboski v. Prax 187 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1971