Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mattson v. St. Luke's Hospital, 89 N.W.2d 743.

31 citing documents.

Jennifer Odegaard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Travis J Maahs, a Minnesota resident, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Luke’s Hosp., (“It is only when the owner or possessor having a duty to remove snow and ice, improperly permits an accumulation thereof to remain after a reasonable length of time for removal has elapsed, that liability may arise for the unsafe and dangerous condition thereby created.” (quotation omitted)).
Isaac C. Johnson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kathleen Corte, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul, (allowing for reasonable time after icy cond itions develop to rectify them).
Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
252 Minn. 230, 234, see also Hedglin v. Church of St.
Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul, 252 Minn. 230, 234–35, (holding that land possessor’s duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition “does not require that outside steps be kept free of ice at all times but permits a reasonable length of time for the removal o f the ice” when precipitation is continuous); Frykman v. Univ.
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lois St. Aubin v. Caseys Retail Company d/b/a Caseys General Store Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Frykman v. University of Minnesota-Duluth 611 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Frykman v. University of Minnesota-Duluth 611 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Luke’s Hosp., 252 Minn. 230, 233
Johnson v. Alford & Neville, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Alford & Neville, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paul, 252 Minn. 230, 233
Wesala v. City of Virginia 390 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wesala v. City of Virginia 390 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paul, 252 Minn. 230, 233
Niemann v. Northwestern College 389 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Niemann v. Northwestern College 389 N.W.2d 260 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paul, 252 Minn. 230, 233
Anderson v. St. Thomas More Newman Center 178 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1970
Anderson v. St. Thomas More Newman Center 178 N.W.2d 242 Minn. 1970
Paul, 252 Minn. 230, 233 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743, 745 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422, 425.
White v. Northwestern Bank Building Company 160 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1968
White v. Northwestern Bank Building Company 160 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1968
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230, 233 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743, 745 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422, 425, is that “[t]he exercise of reasonable care for the safety of invitees requires neither the impossible nor the impractical.” Winter snow and ice are realities of Minnesota life with which one must cope but against which he cannot insure.
Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
Hedglin v. Church of St. Paul of Sauk Centre 158 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1968
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422, and Geis v. Hodgman, 255 Minn. 1 , 95 N. W. (2d) 311 , as controlling on the issues here involved.
Kiaka v. SS Kresge Company 141 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1966
Kiaka v. SS Kresge Company 141 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1966
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422, where we stated ( 252 Minn. 233 , 89 N. W. [2d] 745) that the “exercise, of reasonable care for the safety of invitees requires neither the impossible nor the impractical.” We therefore hold that the trial court was correct in granting defendant judgment n. o. v. Affirmed.
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
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422.
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
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422; Winsby v. Kertell, 10 Cal.
Sarsfield v. St. Mary's Hospital 129 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1964
Sarsfield v. St. Mary's Hospital 129 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1964
Luke’s Hospital, 252 Minn. 230 , 89 N. W. (2d) 743 , 71 A. L. R. (2d) 422, the court properly instructed the jury that only when there are extraordinary circumstances that render the walkway unreasonably dangerous to invitees is a landowner or possessor required to take measures to reduce the slipperiness of his walkways prior to a reasonable time