Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 93 N.W.2d 552.

76 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501
Jessica Kelly, as Trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin of Richard Roy Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Kelly, as Trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin of Richard Roy Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Two employers are engaged in a “common enterprise” when (1) they are working on the same 5 project, (2) their employees are “working together on a common activity,” and (3) their employees are “exposed to the same or similar hazards.” LeDoux, d at 22 (citing McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506, ).
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Lanterman v. Michael Roman Afremov Minn. Ct. App. 2016
without regard to the effect of their answers upon the ultimate outcome of the case.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 516
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This is the case 5 where the following factors are satisfied: “(1) [t]he employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) [t]he employees must be working together (common activity); and (3) [i]n such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The common-enterprise doctrine bars a damages claim based on the negligence of a third party’s employee when three factors are satisfied: “(1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be [w]orking together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Douglas Speltz v. Interplastic Corporation, and third party v. Egan Company, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Douglas Speltz v. Interplastic Corporation, and third party v. Egan Company, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 894 (quoting McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506, ).
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 835 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Olson v. Lyrek 582 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , quoted in O’Malley, d at 894 .
Carstens v. Mayers, Inc. 574 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Carstens v. Mayers, Inc. 574 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
We apply a three-part test to determine whether a common enterprise has been shown: “(1) [t]he employers must be engaged on the same project; (2)[t]he employees must be working together (common activity); and (3)[i]n such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Sorenson v. Visser 558 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sorenson v. Visser 558 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
In 1958, this court stated that “the plaintiff should have the benefit of the rule of construction that the Workmens’ Compensation Act must always be construed most liberally in favor of the injured workman.” McCour tie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 510-11
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 529 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 529 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
*738 In McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , the supreme court set forth a three-part test for barring an injured worker’s common law action against a negligent third-party employer: (1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be working together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that t
Hassler v. Simon 466 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hassler v. Simon 466 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 516
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 461 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 461 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See, e.g., State Farm Fire & McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 515-18 , -564 (1958).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 518
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 516
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., Chenette v. Trustees of Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa, 431 F.2d 49 (8th Cir.1970); McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501 , Glear son v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499
Alberts v. United Stockyards Corp. 413 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Alberts v. United Stockyards Corp. 413 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , (emphasis in original).
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
2 We recounted the history of section 176.-061 in McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 504-05 , -56 (1958), and recognized that the legislature intended by the 1923 amendment “to enlarge both the rights and remedies of the injured workman and the liability of the third-party tortfeasor to the injured person.” Id.
Higgins v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 400 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Higgins v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 400 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
An injured worker’s common law negligence action against third parties is barred if (1) the employers were engaged on the same project; (2) the employees were working together (common activity); and (3) under the circumstances, the employees were “subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 385 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 385 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sabasko v. Fletcher 359 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 516
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co. 353 N.W.2d 899 Minn. 1984
See McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 510
Ritter v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 352 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by