Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Springrose v. Willmore, 192 N.W.2d 826.

118 citing documents.

Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Soderberg v. Anderson 922 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2019
Soderberg v. Anderson 922 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2019
*203 Springrose v. Willmore , 292 Minn. 23 , , 827-28 (1971).
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Springrose v. Willmore , 292 Minn. 23 , , 827 (1971).
Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Iepson v. Noren , n. 1 (Minn. 1981); Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24–25
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , (“Primary assumption of risk, express or implied, relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all — that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm.”).
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Unlike primary assumption of risk, secondary assumption of risk is not an absolute bar to recovery; instead, “like any other form of contributory negligence, [secondary] assumption of risk must be apportioned under [the] comparative negligence statute.” *193 Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24-25
Schneider Ex Rel. Schneider v. Erickson 654 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schneider Ex Rel. Schneider v. Erickson 654 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24-25
Jussila v. United States Snowmobile Ass'n 556 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Jussila v. United States Snowmobile Ass'n 556 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Sprngrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24
Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(citing Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , ).
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rusciano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rusciano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Secondary assumption of risk is a form of contributory negligence.” Wagner, d at 226 (citing Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , ).
Larson v. Powder Ridge Ski Corp. 432 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson v. Powder Ridge Ski Corp. 432 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson also argues that by offering the ticket into evidence, Powder Ridge was attempting to show that decedent not only assumed the risk “involving patrons of inherently dangerous sporting events,” (citing Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , ), but also the risk of injury as a result of Powder Ridge’s “duty to safely supervise [rope tow] activities or to maintain the premises in a safe condition.” Wagner, d at 226 .
Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grisim v. TapeMark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament 415 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 1987
Explained Grisim v. TapeMark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament 415 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 1987
In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , we explained that, “[pjrimary assumption of risk, express or implied, relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all— that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm.” Id.
Grisim v. Tapemark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament 394 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Grisim v. Tapemark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament 394 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24
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
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , recast assumption of risk as an element of comparative negligence under Minn.Stat.
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 396 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1986
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises 384 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , the supreme court articulated the distinctions between primary and secondary assumption of risk.
Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of St. James 380 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24-25 , (unreasonable assumption of risk no longer bars recovery by a plaintiff, but may be considered as part of her contributory negligence).
Swagger v. City of Crystal 379 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swagger v. City of Crystal 379 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , (emphasis added).
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co. 378 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co. 378 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24-25 , the supreme court mandated that “assumption of risk must be apportioned under our comparative negligence statute.” Here, the court gave the jury a typical comparative negligence instmction.
Thompson v. Hill 366 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thompson v. Hill 366 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23
Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , see Minn.Stat.
Herrly v. Muzik 355 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Herrly v. Muzik 355 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , the Minnesota Supreme Court held that assumption of the risk is not a separate and absolute defense, but rather is comparable negligence.
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
Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , recast assumption of risk as an element of comparative negligence under Minn.Stat.
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
In Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23 , the scope of that statute was judicially expanded to include the assumption of the risk defense.
Hannah v. Chmielewski, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1982
Hannah v. Chmielewski, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 1982
It “relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all — that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm.” Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by