DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company, 144 N.W.2d 555.

57 citing documents.

  • Jacob Pries, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    A landowner’s duty of reasonable care to invitees may “require [the landowner] to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him, against [a] known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm.” –58 (Minn. 1966) (quotation omitted); (observing that a landowner has no duty of care to invitees if the “danger is known or obvious to them, unless the [landowner] should anticipate the harm despite su
  • Ana Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    distributors would come to the loading dock for its products and attempt to negotiate the [parking lot] despite the slippery conditions.”
  • Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A possessor may anticipate the harm if “to a reasonable [person] in his position the advantages [to be gained] would outweigh the apparent risk.” (quotation omitted).
  • David Homick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495 , -58 (1966) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (adopting and applying section 343A).
  • Steven Elliot Rousseau, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Co., d 731, 732 (Minn. 1983); Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496, d 555, 557 (1966); Johnson v. R. E. Tapley, Inc., 272 Minn. 19, 19-20, - 40 (1965).
  • Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    A possessor of land is not relieved of a duty of care when it “can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm.” Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497, –58 (1966) (holding known-or- obvious-danger doctrine did not eliminate defendant’s duty of care for icy parking lot because it could anticipate use by invitees).
  • Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Compare Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497–98, (determining as reasonable conclusion that defendant employer should have anticipated that elderly employees would attempt to negotiate obviously icy parking lot to get to loading dock), with Jensen v. Allied Cent.
  • Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    But the supreme court has recognized that cases exist in which the possessor of land is not relieved of the duty of care when ‘“the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger.’” Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497, –58 (1966) (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts § 343A cmt.
  • 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
    Rawleigh Co., however, the supreme court adopted the rule set forth in Restatement (Second) Torts § 343A (1965), clarifying that a possessor is liable to an invitee for harm caused by a known or obvious condition if the possessor should have “anticipate^] the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” 274 Minn. 495, 496-97
  • Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
  • Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496-97 , -58 (1966) (expressly approving Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A)).
  • Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Rawleigh, 274 Minn. 495, 496-97 , ) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965)).
  • Bundy v. Holmquist 669 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Bundy v. Holmquist 669 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496-97 , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965)).
  • Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
  • Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496-97 , -58 (1966).
  • 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
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497 , -58 (1966).
  • Sutherland v. Barton 570 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1997
  • Sutherland v. Barton 570 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1997
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496-97
  • Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
  • Baber v. Dill 531 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1995
    Rawleigh, Co., 274 Minn. 495, 496-97 , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965)).
  • Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 499
  • Van Gordon v. Herzog 410 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Van Gordon v. Herzog 410 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495 , where the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell on an icy parking lot.
  • Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497 , -58 (1966).
  • Lawrence v. Hollerich 394 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Lawrence v. Hollerich 394 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Rawleigh, 274 Minn. 495, 497
  • Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
  • Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
    Inc., Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495 , where the general construction manager is the possessor of the property and has voluntarily, contractually undertaken the duty of taking precautions for the safe construction of the building, a greater degree of care is required.
  • Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
  • Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
    This court expressly approved Restatement, Torts (2d) § 343A(1), in Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497 , stressing in italics the “unless” language.
  • Gaston v. Fazendin Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1978
  • Gaston v. Fazendin Construction, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1978
    With respect to the first and second of these points, we held in Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495, 497 , that a possessor of land could be held liable for injury resulting to a lawful entrant from a known or obvious danger if “the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” (Italics in original.)
  • Hammerlind Ex Rel. Hammerlind v. Clear Lake Star Factory Skydiver's Club 258 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1977
  • Hammerlind Ex Rel. Hammerlind v. Clear Lake Star Factory Skydiver's Club 258 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1977
    The district court, relying on Restatement, Torts 2d, § 343A, which we approved in Peterson v. W. T. Raleigh Co., 274 Minn. 495 , reasoned that the lake presented an obvious danger to *594 parachutists and that Leaders should not reasonably have anticipated harm despite the obviousness.
  • Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
  • Szyplinski v. Midwest Mobile Home Supply Co. 241 N.W.2d 306 Minn. 1976
    Prosser, Torts (4 ed.) § 37, p. 207; 65A C. J. S., Negligence, § 252, p. 817; Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co. 274 Minn. 495, 497
  • Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • Springrose v. Willmore 192 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1971
  • Springrose v. Willmore 192 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1971
    1 Quite apart from Meistrich, we have in other situations, most notably in Peterson v. W. T. Rawleigh Co. 274 Minn. 495, 498 , ourselves acknowledged the emerging concept that an injured plaintiff’s involuntary or otherwise not unreasonable assumption of risk should not exonerate a defendant from his causal negligence.
  • Parness v. Economics Laboratory, Inc. 170 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1969