Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., 262 N.W.2d 377.

98 citing documents.

Employers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Oakes Manufacturing Co. 356 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The supreme court in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., approved the submission of a products liability case to the jury by means of a special verdict in the same language used here.
Herrly v. Muzik 355 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Herrly v. Muzik 355 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that strict liability could be compared with negligence under the then comparative negligence statute.
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Danielson v. Hanford 352 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The doctrine of curative admissibility, expressed in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., “allows a party to present otherwise inadmissible evidence on an evidentiary point where an opponent has ‘opened the door’ by introducing similarly inadmissible evidence on the same point.” Busch explains: In order to be entitled as a matter of right to present rebutting evidence on an evidentiary fa
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 348 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Busch v. Busch Const., Inc.
Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. 344 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1984
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
For an analogous proposition in a different context see Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
Reinhardt v. Colton 337 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 1983
See, Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., 399 (Minn.1977).
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
Alden Wells Veterinarian Clinics, Inc. v. Wood 324 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1982
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
The statute underwent a second redefinition in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., when it was applied to strict liability claims as well.
Alden Wells Veterinarian Clinics, Inc. v. Wood 324 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1982
(footnote omitted): [A] consumer’s negligent failure to inspect a product or to guard against defects is not a defense and thus may not be compared with a distributor’s strict liability.
Bebeau v. Mart 310 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1981
Bebeau v. Mart 310 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1981
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Jones v. Fisher 309 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1981
Jones v. Fisher 309 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1981
3 Most recently, in Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., noted in 5 Wm.
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia 306 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1981
3 The arguments of both parties center around an application of Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., noted in, 5 Wm.
Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co. 304 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1981
Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Building Components Co. 304 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1981
Parr v. Cloutier 297 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1980
Parr v. Cloutier 297 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1980
Fifer v. Nelson, 295 Minn. 313 , Berg v. Gunderson, 275 Minn. 420
Ahrenholz v. Hennepin County 295 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1980
Ahrenholz v. Hennepin County 295 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1980
Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.
Lange Ex Rel. Lange v. Schweitzer 295 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1980
Lange Ex Rel. Lange v. Schweitzer 295 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 1980
See Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114
Wegscheider v. Plastics, Inc. 289 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1980
Wegscheider v. Plastics, Inc. 289 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1980
He argues that his only negligence, if any, was failure to inspect the tanker for jagged edges and, therefore, that under our holding in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., such negligence would not be compared if defendant were found strictly liable.
Thurman Ex Rel. Thurman v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Minneapolis 289 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1980
Thurman Ex Rel. Thurman v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Minneapolis 289 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1980
The elements necessary for curative admissibility are clearly set out in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., : In order to be entitled as a matter of right to present rebutting evidence on an evidentiary fact: (a) the original evidence must be inadmissible and prejudicial, (b) the rebuttal evidence must be similarly inadmissible, and (c) the rebuttal evidence must be limited to the same eviden-tiary fact as t
Romanik v. Toro Co. 277 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1979
Romanik v. Toro Co. 277 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 1979
Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., Trovatten v. Hanson, 171 Minn. 130 , 213 N.W.
Barlage v. the Place, Inc. 277 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1979
Barlage v. the Place, Inc. 277 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1979
Inc., we conclude that the verdict in this case is not clearly excessive.
Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
Armstrong v. Mailand 284 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1979
If the issue in this case concerned the applicability of secondary assumption of the risk to strict liability actions, we would feel compelled to follow our decisions in Springrose v. Willmore, supra, and hold that such conduct of the plaintiff should be treated as a type of contributory negligence and compared with the defendant’s fault under our comparative fault statute, L.1978, c. 738, §§ 6, 7 (to be codified at Minn.St.
Cobb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 274 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1979
Cobb v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. 274 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1979
See also Busch v. Busch Const., Inc., Minn., Smith v. Kahler Corp., Inc., 297 Minn. 272, 282 , Manion v. Tweedy, 257 Minn. 59, 64
Lamke v. Louden 269 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1978
Lamke v. Louden 269 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 1978
Co., 244 Minn. 81 , a case which we expressly overruled in Busch v. General Motors Corp., Minn.
Anunti v. Payette 268 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1978
Anunti v. Payette 268 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1978
Payette’s claim that excessive damages were awarded under the influence of passion and prejudice merits little discussion in light of our decision in Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc., Minn.
Chatfield v. Sherwin-Williams Co. 266 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1978
Chatfield v. Sherwin-Williams Co. 266 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1978
336.2-715(2)(b), and compatible with our approach in a recent products liability action based on strict liability, Busch v. Busch Const. Co., Minn., we decline to consider this issue since it was not presented to the trial court and has been raised for the first time on appeal.