Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Faber v. Roelofs, 212 N.W.2d 856.

33 citing documents.

Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
Distinguished Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
This case is distinguishable from Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16, 25 , where we relied on the “any claimant” language in Section 466.04, subd.
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
In Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , where a father sought to recover medical expenses for his son’s injury, the Minnesota Supreme Court held *100 that this statute envisions multiple claimants for a single occurrence.
Badger Equipment Co. v. Brennan 431 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Badger Equipment Co. v. Brennan 431 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , the supreme court addressed the difference between claims by parents for medical expenses and claims by children for their injuries: This court has long recognized that the responsible parent of an injured child has a right of action for the injured child’s medical expenses.
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , the supreme court ruled that a father’s claim for medical expenses for injuries to his son was distinct enough to avoid being grouped with his son’s claim for purposes of a municipal liability limitation statute similar to section 3.736, subd.
Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hanson v. Roe 373 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16, 22
Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16
Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The supreme court, in Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , indicated that the trial court should give a cautionary instruction where subsequent remedial measures are admitted into evidence.
Hueper v. Goodrich 314 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1982
Hueper v. Goodrich 314 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1982
Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , Dettinger v. Uleberg, 171 Minn. 81 , 213 N.W.
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. 260 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1977
See, Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16
Anderson v. Ohm 258 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1977
Anderson v. Ohm 258 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1977
Mikes v. Baumgartner, 277 Minn. 423, Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
Application of Faber The final issue presented is the application of Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , on subsequent appeal, *490 Minn., to the facts of this case.
Holmberg v. Indianhead Oil Co., Inc. 256 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1977
Holmberg v. Indianhead Oil Co., Inc. 256 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1977
Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16
Kingsley v. Ind. School Dist. No. 2, Hill City 251 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1977
Kingsley v. Ind. School Dist. No. 2, Hill City 251 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1977
The rule is stated in Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16, 22 , as follows: “Where the case is being tried to a jury, trial courts must exercise great caution in admitting evidence of repairs made or precautions taken after an accident for the purpose of showing the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Faber v. Roelofs 250 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1977
Faber v. Roelofs 250 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1977
This case was before us two years ago, in Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16
Notch v. Victory Granite Co. 238 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1976
Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1975
Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407
Elwell v. County of Hennepin 221 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1974
Elwell v. County of Hennepin 221 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1974
Co. 268 Minn. 390 , Ukkonen v. City of Minneapolis, 280 Minn. 494 , Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16