Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 212 N.W.2d 361.

41 citing documents.

Munda Forbort, et al v. St. Mary’s Medical Center Minn. Ct. App. 2026
ctice action to infer negligence when the plaintiff can prove three things: “(1) that ordinarily the injury would not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) that the cause of the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) that the injury was not due to plaintiff’s conduct.” Hoven v. Rice Mem’l Hosp.
Simon Tharek Duoth, as Trustee and Next of Kin, Taban Tharek v. Steven Mark Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Simon Tharek Duoth, as Trustee and Next of Kin, Taban Tharek v. Steven Mark Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2024
f the collision, other than [Wood’s] statement that [Tharek] was in the lane of traffic.” As such, the district court determined that “the only available means of proving negligence is through circumstantial evidence supported by expert opinion.” But “expert testimony is not necessary where the matters to be proved fall within an area of common knowledge.”
Roger Stelter, et al v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Stelter, et al v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Joseph’s Hosp., (quoting Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424, ).
Minn. 2021
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Stelter v. Chiquita Processed Foods, L.L.C. 658 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Joseph’s Hosp., (quoting Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424 , ).
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Haile v. Sutherland 598 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
6; see Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424 , (holding affidavit of expert review is unnecessary when matters fall within developing lay comprehension of medical techniques).
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Werdin v. Fielden 406 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bauer v. Friedland 394 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Expert testimony is not necessary where the facts to be determined are within the common knowledge of the jury and “where the results of surgical or medical treatment, viewed in the light of all the circumstances, provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support an inference of negligence.” Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424
Hoven v. Rice Memorial Hospital 386 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hoven v. Rice Memorial Hospital 386 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Res ipsa loquitur is “merely another way of characterizing the minimal kind of circumstantial evidence which is legally sufficient to warrant an inference of negligence.” Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424 , (footnote omitted).
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 366 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 366 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419
Fleming v. Hallum 350 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fleming v. Hallum 350 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419
Olson Ex Rel. Olson v. St. Joseph's Hospital 281 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1979
Olson Ex Rel. Olson v. St. Joseph's Hospital 281 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1979
As this court so aptly stated in Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424 , : “ ‘The thing or situation speaks for itself’ is usually abbreviated by using the Latin phrase ‘res ipsa loquitur.’ It is merely another way of characterizing the minimal kind of circumstantial evidence which is legally sufficient to warrant an inference of negligence.
Rodriguez v. Jackson 574 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Lhotka v. Larson, 307 Minn. 121 , Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419
Young v. Caspers 249 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1977
Young v. Caspers 249 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 1977
In Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419, 424 , the rationale for the doctrine in medical malpractice cases was described as follows: “ ‘The thing or situation speaks for itself’ is usually abbreviated by using the Latin phrase ‘res ipsa loquitur.’ It is merely another way of characterizing the minimal kind of circumstantial evi
Larsen v. Yelle 246 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1976
Larsen v. Yelle 246 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1976
ite standard of care is of necessity demonstrated by expert testimony (see, Todd v. Eitel Hospital, 306 Minn. 254, 257 , [1975]), although as the public, and consequently jurors, have become increasingly familiar with medical techniques the requisite standard has frequently been satisfactorily established without the use of expert testimony (see, Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , [1973]; Miller v. Raaen, supra; and cases there cited).
Spannaus v. Otolaryngology Clinic & Professional Associates 242 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1976
Spannaus v. Otolaryngology Clinic & Professional Associates 242 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1976
See, Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , Jensen v. Linner, 260 Minn. 22 , Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , Yates v. Gamble, 198 Minn. 7 , Wallstedt v. The Swedish Hospital, 220 Minn. 274
Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
Lhotka v. Larson 238 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1976
Silver v. Redleaf, 292 Minn. 463 , Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419
Todd v. Eitel Hospital 237 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1975
Todd v. Eitel Hospital 237 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1975
6 Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , 1 Louisell & Williams, Medical Malpractice, § 14.06.
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
Co. 361 U. S. 354 , 80 S. Ct. 387 , 4 L. ed. 2d 366 (1960); Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , Silver v. Redleaf, 292 Minn. 463 , Swanson v. Chatterton, supra; Schulz v. Feigal, supra; Hoffman v. Naslund, 274 Minn. 521 , Miller v. Raaen, 273 Minn. 109 , Jensen v. Linner, supra; Wallstedt v. Swedish Hospital, 22
Bryan v. Luverne Community Hospital 217 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1974
Bryan v. Luverne Community Hospital 217 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1974
We hold that the action of the trial court in directing a verdict for the defendant doctors was reversible error in view of our holding in the case of Hestbeck v. Hennepin County, 297 Minn. 419 , decided subsequent to argument in the instant case.