DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Hansen, 216 N.W.2d 124.

52 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
    " Bjerke v. Johnson , , 669 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Olson v. Hansen , 299 Minn. 39 , , 127 (1974) ); see Armstrong v. Mailand , , 351 (Minn. 1979) (noting that the application of primary assumption of risk "is dependent upon the plaintiff's manifestation of consent, express or implied, to relieve the defendant of a duty").
  • Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
    " Bjerke v. Johnson , , 669 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Olson v. Hansen , 299 Minn. 39 , , 127 (1974) ).
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
  • Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
    if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought”); Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39 , -28 (1974) (discussing the limits of the assumption-of-risk doctrine); Koval v. Thompson, 272 Minn. 53 , (discussing the limits of the last-clear-chance and discovered-peril doctrines).
  • Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44, (determining that “when parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks[] .
  • Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    See Daly, d at 120 (noting that “the ‘sport of snowmobiling’ was not an ‘inherently dangerous sporting’ activity to which the doctrine applied because hazards like tipping or rolling could ‘be successfully avoided’ ” and that a “ ‘snowmobile, carefully operated, is no more hazardous than an automobile, train, or taxi’ ” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , )).
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
  • Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
    As to these risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if' the plaintiffs injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.’ ” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ); d *120 343, 351 (Minn.1979) (“[Primary assumption of risk’s] application is dependent upon the plaintiffs manifestation of consent, express or implied, to relieve the defendant of a duty.
  • Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
  • Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
    The variety at issue in this appeal is termed “[p]rimary assumption of [the] risk,” and arises “only where parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks.” Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • 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
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Primary assumption of the risk arises when parties “have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks.” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ), review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • 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
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • Lubbers v. Anderson 524 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Lubbers v. Anderson 524 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Primary assumption of the risk does not apply to snowmobile driving because a “snowmobile, carefully operated, is no more hazardous than an automobile, train, or taxi.” Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , see also Carpenter v. Mattison, 300 Minn. 273, 277
  • Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    See Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , (no primary assumption of the risk in consenting to snowmobiling, which can be performed safely).
  • Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    As to these risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if the plaintiffs injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ).
  • Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Olsen v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • 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
    ANALYSIS I. Primary assumption of risk applies “only where the parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks.” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ).
  • Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    “As to those risks, the [respondent] has no duty to protect the [appellant] and, thus, if the [appellant’s] injury arises from an incidental risk, the [respondent] is not negligent.” Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39
  • Henkel v. Holm 411 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Henkel v. Holm 411 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    As to those risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if the plaintiff’s injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.” Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • 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
    As to these risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if the plaintiff’s injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.” Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • 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
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44
  • Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Isker v. Gardner 360 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The trial court decision on assumed risks was stated in its memorandum: There was no evidence at trial to suggest that Plaintiff had voluntarily chosen “to encounter a known and appreciated danger created by the negligence of the [Defendant” (citing Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 43 , ).
  • Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
  • Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
    Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39 , Springrose v. Willmore, supra.
  • Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
  • Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
    See, e. g., Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39 , Vanden Broucke v. Lyon County, 301 Minn. 399 , Parr v. Hamnes, 303 Minn. 333
  • Konovsky v. Kraus-Anderson, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1976
  • Konovsky v. Kraus-Anderson, Inc. 237 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1976
    Meulners v. Hawkes, 299 Minn. 76 , Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39
  • Milloch v. Getty 220 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1974
  • Milloch v. Getty 220 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1974
    See, Meulners v. Hawkes, 299 Minn. 76 , and Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39