Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 258 N.W.2d 782.

56 citing documents.

Joyce Walsh, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (“[W]here the manufacturer or the seller of a product has actual or constructive knowledge of danger to users, the seller or manufacturer has a duty to give warning of such dangers.”); see also Mulder , d at 885 & n.1 (discussing that “[t]he [drug] manufacturer has no duty to warn the lay
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc. 863 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paul v. Angeles, (A14-1149), Charlene Mead, (A14-1150), Charles Starovasnik, Jr., (A14-1151), Trudy Marse, (A14-1152), Rebecca Manuel, (A14-1153), Claude … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc. 863 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under Minnesota law, “where the manufacturer or the seller of a product has actual or constructive knowledge of danger to users, the seller or manufacturer has a duty to give warning of such dangers.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Paul v. Angeles, (A14-1149), Charlene Mead, (A14-1150), Charles Starovasnik, Jr., (A14-1151), Trudy Marse, (A14-1152), Rebecca Manuel, (A14-1153), Claude … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under Minnesota law, “where the manufacturer or the seller of a product has actual or constructive knowledge of danger to users, the seller or manufacturer has a duty to give warning of such dangers.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
We have described the duty to warn as consisting of “two duties: (1) [t]he duty to give adequate instructions for safe use; and (2) the duty to warn of dangers inherent in improper usage.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[WJhere the manufacturer or the seller of a product has actual or constructive knowledge of danger to users, the seller or manufacturer has a duty to give warning of such dangers.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2004
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 676 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2004
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 288 Minn. 83, 89 , see also Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., , 791 n. 4 (Minn.1977) (in strict habihty case, “retailer is liable to the consumer even absent culpability on its part”).
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Marshall v. Galvez 480 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marshall v. Galvez 480 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See, (failure to yield right of way at city intersection); Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (commercial sale of goods; breach of seller’s duty to warn); Lee v. Lee, 248 Minn. 496, 499 , (head-on collision due to defendant driving in middle of two-lane road as he went over a hill at full speed).
Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. 473 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. 473 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Company
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Dise v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. 428 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Todalen v. United States Chemical Co. 424 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Todalen v. United States Chemical Co. 424 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
Huber v. NIAGARA MACH. AND TOOL WORKS 417 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Huber v. NIAGARA MACH. AND TOOL WORKS 417 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc. , (Minn.1977).
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
See Id.; Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Morris v. Littler 399 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Littler 399 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
Balder v. Haley 399 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1987
Balder v. Haley 399 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1987
There is “no duty to warn of an improper use that could not have been foreseen.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
See, Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Clark v. Rental Equipment Co., 300 Minn. 420, 426
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., however, the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically found that not only is there a duty to provide instructions for safe use, there may also be a duty to warn of dangers inherent in the improper use of a product.
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., -87 (Minn.1977) (affirming a directed verdict of negligent failure to warn on use of a space heater).
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., the supreme court held that the duty to warn consists of two duties: “(1) The duty to give adequate instructions for safe use; and (2) the duty to warn of dangers inherent in improper usage.
Danielson v. Johnson 366 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Danielson v. Johnson 366 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Anderson v. Amundson 354 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Anderson v. Amundson 354 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“The trial court may direct a verdict for the party in whose favor the evidence overwhelmingly preponderates even though there is some evidence in favor of the adverse party.” Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984