Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pietrzak v. Eggen, 295 N.W.2d 504.

32 citing documents.

Jill Marie Kalisch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To recover future medical expenses, “the plaintiff has the burden of proving future damages to a reasonable certainty.”
A22-0724 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 The jury instructions also stated that the amounts awarded as damages must be proved with “reasonable certainty.” (“In a civil action the plaintiff has the burden of proving future damages to a reasonable certainty.”).
Wayne E. Hukriede, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Elm Creek Courthome Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 504, 507 (Minn. 1980).
Nicholas Houchins, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“In a civil action the plaintiff has the burden of proving future damages to a reasonable certainty” to ensure that “there is no recovery for damages which are remote, speculative, or conjectural.”
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
And, as we have explained many times, in the case of future damages, a plaintiff like Jocelyn at all times retains the burden of proving such damages "to a reasonable certainty.”
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Criticized Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
See, -08 (Minn.1980) (holding that the jury should have been instructed on future medical expenses as a component of special damages); Hake v. Soo Line Ry.
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bryson v. Pillsbury Co. 573 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Hewitt v. Apollo Group 490 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hewitt v. Apollo Group 490 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mueller v. Sigmond 486 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mueller v. Sigmond 486 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A party is entitled to a future damages instruction if “she has shown that such damage is more likely to occur than not.”
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Tate v. Scanlan International, Inc. 403 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tate v. Scanlan International, Inc. 403 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kwapien v. Starr 400 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kwapien v. Starr 400 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krueger v. Nordstrom 367 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Krueger v. Nordstrom 367 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
in favor of her requested instruction.
Saide v. Stanton 659 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1983