Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hart v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 276 N.W.2d 166.

36 citing documents.

In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2011
The elements of contribution are “common liability of joint tortfeasors to an injured party and the payment by one of the tortfeasors of more than his share of that liability.”
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
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
We impose this requirement because we believe that only a tortfeasor who is liable for a plaintiffs loss should be required to contribute to the payment for that loss.” -69 (Minn.1979); , 728 (Minn.1981) (“Two requirements must be met before contribution may be obtained: ‘First, the co-tort-feasors must be under a common liability to the injured party.
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
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
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Fiedler v. Spoelhof 483 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
to support his position.
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Buchanan v. Dain Bosworth Inc. 469 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Where the plaintiff chooses to split his claims into two separate cases, just as when he splits a claim against two defendants into separate actions against each defendant, the plaintiff must “bear any risk imposed by using that procedure.”
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(aircraft pilot adjudged not negligent in the death of plaintiff-passenger held immune from contribution claims by the aircraft manufacturer).
Hennings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 438 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hennings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 438 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
involved a contribution dispute between a defendant pilot and defendant manufacturer arising out of an airplane crash.
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 1989
where a plaintiff, unsuccessful against one tortfeasor, brought a subsequent action for the same injury against a second tortfeasor.
Melrose Floor Co., Inc. v. Lechner 435 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Melrose Floor Co., Inc. v. Lechner 435 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(there must be common liability to the injured party).
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
as support for its claim that common liability is still essential for contribution.
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
(defendant airplane manufacturer not entitled to contribution from defendant pilot whose conduct was found not negligent in a prior action); Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143 , (liquor vendor denied contribution from a driver found less negligent than the intoxicated decedent in p
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
A party seeking contribution in a tort action must prove “a common liability of joint tortfeasors to an injured party and the payment by one of the tort-feasors of more than his share of that liability.”
Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
Conde v. City of Spring Lake Park 290 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1980
Conde v. City of Spring Lake Park 290 N.W.2d 164 Minn. 1980
1 Secondly appellants argue that our decisions in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114 , compel us to take a second look at Ascheman .