Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 257 N.W.2d 679.

126 citing documents.

Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg Minn. 2026
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 60- 61; (explaining how to apply the distribution formula and the resulting interests of the employee, employer, and tortfeasor).
Hermann Horst, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized an equitable right of contribution between a third-party tortfeasor and an employer in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. , 9 (1977).
Frederick S. Fish, Minn. 2019
(“[T]here is no common liability to the employee in tort .
Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Finally, URS argues that “Jacobs advances an inaccurate and overly restrictive definition of common liability in Minnesota.” URS correctly contends that the supreme court has stated that contribution “is a flexible, equitable remedy designed to accomplish a fair allocation of toss among parties.” Jones, d at 730 n. 4 (quoting Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 128 , ).
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
Contribution rests upon principles of equity.’ ” Lambertson v. Cincinnati Welding Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 123 , -86 (1977) (quoting Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 370 , ).
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
“[A]n injured employee is guaranteed compensation from his or her employer for work-related injuries regardless of the employee’s fault or the employer’s lack of fault, in exchange for forfeiting the right to sue the employer in tort.” Minnesota Breiving Co. v. Egan & Sons Co., (citing Lambertson v. Cincinnati Welding Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21 , ).
Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank 635 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
Schlichte v. Kielan 599 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Meiske v. Lift-Stak & Stor, Inc. 599 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Meiske v. Lift-Stak & Stor, Inc. 599 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
I. Lambertson Contribution Claim A third-party tortfeasor is entitled to contribution from the injured worker’s employer in “an amount proportional to its percentage of negligence, but not to exceed its total workers’ compensation liability to the plaintiff.” Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 130 , (emphasis added).
Silva v. Maplewood Care Center 582 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1998
Silva v. Maplewood Care Center 582 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1998
See Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21
Sayre v. McGOUGH CONST. CO., INC. 580 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sayre v. McGOUGH CONST. CO., INC. 580 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., , 771 n. 4 (Minn.1992); see also Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 130 , (holding that third-party tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employer's workers' compensation liability).
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 560 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 560 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Contribution is appropriate where there is a common liability among the parties, whereas indemnity is appropriate where one party has a primary or greater liability or duty which justly requires him to bear the whole of the burden as between the parties.” Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 128-24 , -86 (1977) (quoting Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 370-71 , -47 (I960)).
Decker v. Brunkow 557 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Decker v. Brunkow 557 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The trial court granted Decker’s motion, declining to modify the contribution rule of Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114 , and holding that section 604.02 does not limit Brunkow’s liability.
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
S.B. Foot Tanning Co. v. Piotrowski 554 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 130
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114
Wirth v. M.A. Mortenson/Shal Associates 520 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Wirth v. M.A. Mortenson/Shal Associates 520 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mortenson also contends that allowing WISF to pursue its subrogation claim, while prohibiting Mortenson from pursuing certain contribution or indemnity claims against other parties, violates the equitable principles enunciated in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114 , and the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21 , (giving overview of worker’s compensation system and policy).
Boryca v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar 487 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1992
Boryca v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar 487 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1992
"In exchange for guaranteed compensation for injury regardless of * * * fault or solvency of at-fault fellow employees, the employee is limited to a fixed schedule of recovery and gives up any right to a common-law action against the employer.” Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 120-21
Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See, (contribution "should be used to achieve fairness on particular facts, unfettered by outworn technical concepts like common liability”); see also Note, Contribution and Indemnity — An Examination of the Upheaval in Minnesota Tort Loss Allocation Concepts, 5 Wm.
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Under the rule of Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114 , the trial court determined that Hutchinson could obtain maximum contribution of $543,445 from Tri-Line, an amount equal to the total workers’ compensation benefits which Tri-Line would pay Hahn.
Folstad v. Eder 467 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1991
Folstad v. Eder 467 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1991
For example, in a case where the value of the lawsuit lies in the subrogation interest and there is no contribution claim under Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114 , prudent counsel might well make suitable fee arrangements with the compensation carrier before undertaking the lawsuit.
Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Whaley v. Anderson 458 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Goswitz v. Fiedler 435 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Goswitz v. Fiedler 435 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 121 , -85 (1977) (emphasis added).
Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc. 434 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1989
Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc. 434 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1989
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corporation, 312 Minn. 114
Konken v. Oakland Farmers' Elevator Co. 425 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1988