Cited by

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

104 citing documents.

Myers v. Winslow R. Chamberlain Co. 443 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Holiday Inn’s Duty to Entrants The test in determining whether a landowner owes a duty to entrants on land is “that of reasonable care under the existing circumstances.” (citing Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , ).
Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Moe v. Kilde 419 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Moe v. Kilde 419 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
29, 30 (1925) (emphasis added); see also Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 173 , (“the doctrine of stare decisis restrains us from overruling our previous holdings with retroactive effect.”) The Ouellette decision does not come within this rule because it is not an overruling decision.
Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Betzold v. Sherwin 404 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
JIG 330 G-S, which is taken from Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , provides: A possessor of land has a duty to use reasonable care to (inspect and repair his premises) or (warn an entrant who comes upon his premises) to protect the entrant from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by the condition of the premises while he is on the premises.
McIlrath v. College of Saint Catherine 399 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McIlrath v. College of Saint Catherine 399 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174
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
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
MacBeth v. Mondry 392 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court in Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , 174 n. 7, , 648 n. 7 (1972), identified the factors governing landowner liability: * * * the circumstances under which the entrant enters the land (licensee or invitee); foreseeability or possibility of harm; duty to inspect, repair, or warn; reasonableness of inspection or repair; and opportunity and
Johnson v. Miller 388 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Miller 388 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant argues that the general rule, as set forth in Rice and Filipczak , has been overruled by the supreme court’s decision in Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
Pietila v. Congdon 362 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1985
Directing our attention to Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , in which we abolished the traditional distinctions between the duty a landowner owes to invitees and that owed to licensees, the plaintiff contends that as possessors of land the trustees were required to exercise reasonable care to protect Mrs. Pietila, an entrant to the land, from harm, incl
Watters v. Buckbee, Mears Co. 354 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Watters v. Buckbee, Mears Co. 354 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , the court abolished the traditional distinctions governing licensees and invitees but declined to rule on the landowner’s duty to trespassers.
Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230 349 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kantorowicz v. VFW Post, No. 230 349 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The test in determining whether a landowner owes a duty to entrants on land is “that of reasonable care under the circumstances.” citing Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , 174 n. 7, , 648 n. 7 (1972).
Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
Rieger v. Zackoski 321 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1982
Yogerst v. Janish; Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , Hanson v. Christensen, 275 Minn. 204
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
Conover v. Northern States Power Co. 313 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1981
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
Flom v. Flom 291 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1980
The extent of the duty of care of possessors of land to nontrespassers has been most thoroughly discussed in Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , the main importance of which was the abolition of the common law distinction between licensees and invitees.
Broughton v. Curran V. Nielsen Co. 287 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1979
Broughton v. Curran V. Nielsen Co. 287 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1979
For this reason, courses of conduct and actual working relationships are probably better indicators of the respective duties of these parties than are “technical and arbitrary classifications [that often lead] to confusion in the law and inequity in the cases * * Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 166
Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights 284 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1979
Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights 284 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1979
Hanson v. Christensen, 275 Minn. 204 , Montes v. Betcher, 480 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1973); Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
Adee v. Evanson 281 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1979
The landmark case of Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , abolished the common-law distinction between the duty owed by a landowner to a licensee as opposed to an invitee.
Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
In Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , this court held the status of licensee or invitee was no longer conclusive in determining a landowner’s duty to entrants.
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
See, generally, Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161
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
1 *155 In Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 173 , we prospectively abolished the traditional distinction between licensees and invitees in all causes of action arising after July 14, 1972.
Isler Ex Rel. Isler v. Burman 232 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1975
Isler Ex Rel. Isler v. Burman 232 N.W.2d 818 Minn. 1975
2 This cause of action arose prior to our decision, in Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , in which we held that “[t]he duty required of a landowner (or the person charged with responsibility for the condition of the land) as to licensees and invitees is no more and no less than that of any other alleged tortfeasor, and that duty is to use reasonable care for the safety
Yogerst v. Janish 226 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1975
Yogerst v. Janish 226 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1975
1 Our decision in Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , abolishing the distinction between licensees and invitees, does not change the rule of law to be applied under the facts of this case.
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
Dean v. Weisbrod 217 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1974
ld not discover or realize the danger, then he has a duty, one, to use reasonable care to make the premises reasonably safe for the licensee, or, two, to use reasonable care to warn the licensee of the danger or risk involved unless the licensee is already aware, or from facts known to him should have been aware, of the condition of the premises and of the risk involved.” 3 In Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161 , we abolished the distinction between licensee and invitee in consideration of the du
Stapleman v. St. Joseph the Worker 205 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1973