DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

41 citing documents.

  • Munda Forbort, et al., Appellants, 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.”
  • opc7021302-040103.pdf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • opc7021302-040103.pdf 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.