Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thill v. Modern Erecting Company, 170 N.W.2d 865.

60 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Erecting Co., -68 (Minn. 1969).
Richard R. Ryan, Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Debra Lynn Ryan, Decedent for Action for Death by Wrongful … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
B. Loss-of-consortium claim “‘Consortium,’ as a general description, represents reciprocal rights inherent in the marital relationship of a husband and wife, including such undefined elements as comfort, companionship, and commitment to the needs of each other.” –68 (Minn. 1969) (footnote omitted) .
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No. 300, LaCrescent, -78 (Minn.1990); *47 Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , 515 n. 11, , 870 n. 11 (1969); McCormack , 278 Minn, at 343, d at 503 .
Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enterprises, Inc. 567 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Carlson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 527 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Carlson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 527 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
§ 466.04); (wife’s claim for loss of consortium, while derivative from husband’s personal injury claim, is a separate claim with separate injuries); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 513 , (recognizing wife’s right to consortium claim for negligent injuries to husband); Beukhof, d at 225 (husband’s claim for loss of consortium was not a separate injury); Sicoli, d at 303 (husband’s loss of consortium damages caused by wife’s bodily injury)
O'NEIL v. Wells Concrete Products Co. 477 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
O'NEIL v. Wells Concrete Products Co. 477 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 513
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
See, e.g., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 510-11 , -68 (1969).
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 461 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1990
See Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 513, 515 , -70 (1969) (providing a safeguard to a wife’s loss of consortium action, because of the “danger of double recovery”); see also Specialized Tours, 533, 537 (Minn.1986) (noting evidence supported all three theories of liability, but double recovery not allowed); Huffer v. Kozitza
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 460 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 460 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
A wife’s status as a claimant for loss of consortium began in Minnesota with Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Ostrander Ex Rel. Ostrander v. Cone Mills, Inc. 445 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1989
Kohler v. Fletcher 442 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Kohler v. Fletcher 442 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 513
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., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , (recovery by injured spouse is an element in non-injured spouse’s prima facie case for loss of consortium).
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Steinbrecher v. McLeod Cooperative Power Ass'n 392 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company, 284 Minn. 508 , allowed a wife’s action for loss of consortium.
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
BOGENHOLM BY BOGENHOLM v. House 388 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , deals specifically with a spouse's derivative consortium claim.
Huffer v. Kozitza 375 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1985
Huffer v. Kozitza 375 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1985
In Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , this court recognized that a wife had a cause of action for loss of consortium, and announced: The rule that we establish today is that the wife of a husband injured as the direct result of the negligence of another shall have a right of action against that same person for her loss of consortium, subject to th
Huffer v. Kozitza 361 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Huffer v. Kozitza 361 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS A wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium was first recognized by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
Bonhiver v. Fugelso, Porter, Simich & Whiteman, Inc. 355 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1984
* * * [t]he husband’s action does not abate upon the death of the wife * * * »\ Although cases like Peters, Schwalich, and Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , support respondents’ contention that damages for loss of consortium are derivative, these cases do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Homer Bonhiver’s claim for loss of consortium abated because Moira Bon-hiver’s claim for personal injuries died when she did.
Salin v. Kloempken 322 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
Salin v. Kloempken 322 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
In Minnesota, recognition of the wife’s claim came in 1969 in Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , where we rejected “the medieval concept that the husband had a proprietary right to his wife’s services, * * * but that the wife, as the property of her husband, had no reciprocal right to his.” Id.
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe 291 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1980
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Rascop v. Nationwide Carriers 281 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
Rascop v. Nationwide Carriers 281 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1979
A wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium was first allowed in Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Sherlock v. Stillwater Clinic 260 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1977
Sherlock v. Stillwater Clinic 260 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1977
Incidental damages include such items as prenatal and postnatal medical expenses, pain and suffering incurred by the child’s mother, and loss of consortium to the extent that it can be proved under the guidelines set forth in Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Anderson v. Lutheran Deaconess Hospital 257 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1977
Anderson v. Lutheran Deaconess Hospital 257 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1977
Cf. Thill v. Modem Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508
Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
In Thill v. Modern Erecting Co, 284 Minn. 508, 510 , in which we recognized a wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium, we defined consortium: “ ‘Consortium,’ as a general description, represents reciprocal rights inherent in the marital relationship of husband and wife, including such undefined elements as comfort, companionship, and commitment to the
Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
Plain v. Plain 240 N.W.2d 330 Minn. 1976
On this issue, Eschenbach was unaffected by Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 284 Minn. 508
Dawydowycz v. Quady 220 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1974
Dawydowycz v. Quady 220 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1974
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 284 Minn. 508
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
Margo-Kraft Distributors, Inc. v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 200 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1972
2 It had, in all these circumstances, no less *281 than in Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 284 Minn. 508 , the real incentive and full opportunity to have defendants’ negligence determined, and the sole basis for its own claim — that the explosion and fire resulted from the negligence of these defendants in the installation and service of gas to a particular unit heater — was determined.
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 193 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1971
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 193 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1971
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 284 Minn. 508 , authorized plaintiff, Mrs. Therese M. Thill, to proceed to trial on her separate action for loss of consortium.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by