Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 203 N.W.2d 841.

46 citing documents.

Ann Massert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
To the contrary, the supreme court’s caselaw concerning joint liability has indicated that defendants’ “common duty and joint opportunity to protect customers translates into equal and overall liability.” See Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc.
Brandon Grim, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Indeed, “distracting circumstances are factors which the jury might consider in excusing a plaintiff who did n ot look where he was stepping .” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. , 4-45 ( Minn. 1973) (stating principle in the context of tripping hazard caused by changed elevations in commercial store areas).
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taney v. Independent School District No. 624 673 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In fact, “where there is some distraction or other reason which will excuse the failure to see that which is in plain sight, it can be said that a person has exercised that degree of care required of an ordinarily prudent person.” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 206 , (holding three defendants jointly liable for injuries sustained by respondent who tripped over a one and a quarter inch riser in a photo booth).
Hansen v. St. Paul Metro Treatment Center, Inc. 609 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hansen v. St. Paul Metro Treatment Center, Inc. 609 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 208-209 , -847 (1973); Minn.Stat.
Tester v. American Standard, Inc. 590 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Tester v. American Standard, Inc. 590 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Aggregation of Fault In the context of determining what party is more at fault, “aggregation of fault” means that “the negligence of plaintiff ⅜ * * should be compared to the combined negligence of the defendants rather than to the individual negligence attributed 'to each individual defendant.” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 210
Matter of Hibbing Taconite Co. 431 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Matter of Hibbing Taconite Co. 431 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 208
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
See, e.g., Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 206-07 , -46 (1973) (jury could properly find that plaintiff was distracted when she fell due to a change in *407 elevation between adjacent floors); Tonne v. Becker Grain & Lumber Co., 273 Minn. 73, 77 , -800 (1966) (trial court properly denied defendant lumber yard’s motion
Peterson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 399 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Burlington Northern Railroad 399 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This court “need only find sufficient, competent evidence reasonably tending to support and sustain the jury’s finding.” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 204
Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cal-Tank, Inc. v. Interco, Inc. 379 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“This court ‘need only find sufficient, competent evidence reasonably tending to support and sustain the jury’s finding.’ ” Troupe v. Sunrise Electric, Inc., (quoting Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 204 , ).
Austin P. Keller Construction Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 379 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1986
Austin P. Keller Construction Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 379 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1986
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 208
Walton v. Fujita Tourist Enterprises Co. 380 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Walton v. Fujita Tourist Enterprises Co. 380 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 208
Troupe v. Sunrise Electric, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Troupe v. Sunrise Electric, Inc. 360 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
This court “need only find sufficient, competent evidence reasonably tending to support and sustain the jury’s finding.” Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 204
Austin P. Keller Construction Co. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Austin P. Keller Construction Co. v. Drew Agency, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200 , , (1973).
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Bisher v. Homart Development Co. 328 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1983
Appellant, as well as the dissenting opinion, relies on Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200 , but we do not find the case in point.
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
Cambern v. Sioux Tools, Inc. 323 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1982
In Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200 , we allowed aggregation where the four criteria for a joint adventure were met.
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Balaton 320 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1982
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Balaton 320 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1982
Hardenbergh Co., *897 303 Minn. 41 , Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. 297 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1980
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. 297 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1980
All testimony must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, Blasing v. P. R. L. Hardenbergh Co., 303 Minn. 41, 47 , : Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc., 295 Minn. 200, 204 , and a verdict will only be disturbed if it is “manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence.” Carpenter v. Mattison, 300 Minn. 273, 276 , Young v. Hansen, 296 Minn. 430, 433
Zappa v. Fahey 245 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1976
Zappa v. Fahey 245 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1976
See, Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200
Bray v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 232 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1975
Bray v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 232 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1975
However, upon reconsideration after trial, the court concluded that his ruling on the existence of a joint venture was erroneous under the doctrine set forth in Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200
Dorn v. Home Farmers Mutual Insurance Ass'n 220 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1974
Dorn v. Home Farmers Mutual Insurance Ass'n 220 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1974
Joseph the Worker, 295 Minn. 406 , Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200 , Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 292 Minn. 80
Alley Construction Co., Inc. v. State 219 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1974
Alley Construction Co., Inc. v. State 219 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1974
Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200
Kowalske v. Armour and Company 220 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1974
Kowalske v. Armour and Company 220 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1974
To support his contention, plaintiff relies on the case of Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200
Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Carpenter v. Mattison 219 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1974
Joseph the Worker, 295 Minn. 406 , Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200 , Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 292 Minn. 80
Marier v. Memorial Rescue Service, Inc. 207 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1973
Marier v. Memorial Rescue Service, Inc. 207 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1973
We have had occasion to construe the provision in our statute pertaining to joint tortfeasors in Krengel v. Midwest Automatic Photo, Inc. 295 Minn. 200

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by