Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Regan v. Stromberg, 285 N.W.2d 97.
- State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
-
State v. Smith
835 N.W.2d 1
Minn. 2013
(stating that proximate causation is a question of fact for the jury unless reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion); Gatson, d at 148 (concluding that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on supe
- Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
-
Domagala v. Rolland
805 N.W.2d 14
Minn. 2011
-01 (Minn.1979), we held that an erroneous superseding cause instruction was prejudicial because (1) “the issues of duty and cause were crucial,” (2) the attorneys’ attempt to correct the error in closing arguments was not curative, and (3) the jury returned an unusual verdict that raised “serious doubt of the jur
- Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 686 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC
686 N.W.2d 545
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, -100 (Minn. 1979) (finding genuine issue of material fact as to whether husband was in charge of intoxicated wife and thereby owed duty of due care to her when he abandoned her on a highway at night); Tiedeman ex rel.
- Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- 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
(quoting Kroeger v. Lee, 270 Minn. 75, 78 , ).
- Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc.
442 N.W.2d 843
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(quoting Kroeger v. Lee, 270 Minn. 75, 78 , ).
- Friesens, Inc. v. Larson 438 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Friesens, Inc. v. Larson
438 N.W.2d 444
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(since reasonable minds could differ on factors affecting foreseeability, issue of superseding cause was for jury).
- TIEDEMAN BY TIEDEMAN v. Morgan 435 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- TIEDEMAN BY TIEDEMAN v. Morgan 435 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc.
422 N.W.2d 741
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(quoting Kroeger v. Lee, 270 Minn. 75, 78 , ).
- Fette v. Peterson 404 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Fette v. Peterson
404 N.W.2d 862
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(elements necessary for a superseding cause require an original negligent act).
- Hille v. County of Wright 400 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Hille v. County of Wright 400 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Stevens v. Thielen 394 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Stevens v. Thielen
394 N.W.2d 834
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(husband who leaves intoxicated wife on a highway at night has a continuing duty to protect her from foreseeable harm if she is under a disability and if he is “in charge” of her); Depue v. Flatau, 100 Minn. 299 , (where invitee becomes disabled or ill while on premises, landowner owes inv
- Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. 385 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Spinett, Inc. v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.
385 N.W.2d 834
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(cause asserted to be superseding must not have been brought about by original negligence and must not have been reasonably foreseeable by defendant).
- Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck
379 N.W.2d 145
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the court held that a jury question was presented as to whether the husband could be liable for leaving his intoxicated wife on a highway at night.
- Hedlund v. Hedlund 371 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Hedlund v. Hedlund
371 N.W.2d 232
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
our supreme court explained the elements of superseding cause: (1) Its harmful effects must have occurred after the original negligence; (2) it must not have been brought about by the original negligence; (3) it must actively work to bring about a result which would not otherwise have followed from the ori
- Maanum v. Aust 364 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Maanum v. Aust
364 N.W.2d 827
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme court said that four elements are necessary for a cause to be superseding: (1) [f]ts harmful effects must have occurred after the.