Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Peterson v. Balach, 199 N.W.2d 639.

104 citing documents.

James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Landowners have a 6 duty ‘to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.’” ().
Paul Boyum, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 639, 647 (Minn. 1972).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
See Louis, d at 318-19 ; Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Pamela Ristau, on behalf of her minor child Mitch Ristau and Mitch Ristau, individually, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In support of their position, they cite Peterson v. Balach , 294 Minn. 161, 173
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik 897 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 163-64
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pang Her Xiong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Reliakor Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 163-64 , -42 (1972).
Krieger v. City of St. Paul 762 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krieger v. City of St. Paul 762 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Krieger also argues, citing Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , that “[t]he core concept of premises liability” is reasonable care under the circumstances and that the circumstances here, including the age of the entrants, show a risk of serious bodily injury.
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
The possessor must “act as a reasonable person in view of the probability of injury to persons entering upon the property.” Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In 1972, the Minnesota Supreme Court eliminated the categorical distinctions between duties owed to invitees and licensees, and held that landowners’ liability to persons injured on their premises should be determined under “ordinary standards of negligence.” See Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 173
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
-33 (Minn.1985); Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
persons invited upon the premises.” (quoting Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , ).
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Since 1972, we have consistently held that a landowner has a duty “‘to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.’ ” (quoting Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , ).
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating person visiting a tenant, resident, or occupier of land with express or implied consent is entrant rather than trespasser); Peterson v. Ba-lach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , (stating possessor of land owes entrants duty of reasonable care).
Sutherland v. Barton 570 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1997
Sutherland v. Barton 570 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1997
Landowners have a duty “to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.” Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Stelling v. Hanson Silo Co. 563 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Stelling v. Hanson Silo Co. 563 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161,174
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong relies on Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , to argue a special relationship existed between himself and Lakewood as a landowner that required Lakewood to use reasonable care to protect him from injury.
Reider v. City of Spring Lake Park 480 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Reider v. City of Spring Lake Park 480 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 164-65
Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. State 478 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 164-65
Gow v. Turnquist 474 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Gow v. Turnquist 474 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Peterson v. Ba-lach, 294 Minn. 161, 164
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Otto v. City of St. Paul 460 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , Benson v. Hoenig, 228 Minn. 412, 419
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Block v. Target Stores, Inc. 458 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , 174 n. 7, , 648 n. 7 (1972)).
Myers v. Winslow R. Chamberlain Co. 443 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1989