Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914.

67 citing documents.

Erica Robinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Negligence generally is defined as “the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, (d 914, 916 (Minn. 1980)).
Severin M. Chmielewski, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Proximate cause exists if the negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children v. State of Minnesota, ... Minn. 2023
Alejandro Cruz-Guzman, as guardian and next friend of his minor children v. State of Minnesota, ... Minn. 2023
Under our proximate cause standard, the conduct or action must 27 be “a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” Doe 169 v. Brandon, , 177 (Minn. 2014) ().
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
I. Negligence is generally defined as the failure “to exercise such care as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise under such circumstances.” (citations omitted).
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Followed Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2008
Today, we reaffirm the well-established tort principle in the dram shop context that intoxication need only be “a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” (emphasis added) (defining proximate cause in the context of a negligence action); see also Kryzer, d at 37 (citing Flom while discussing the definition of proximate cause under the Dram Shop Act).
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s “conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
But there must also be a showing that the defendant’s conduct “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Lubbers v. Anderson 539 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1995
Lubbers v. Anderson 539 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 1995
There must also be a showing that the defendant’s “conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” , 917 *402 (Minn.1980).
Wallin v. Rappaport 539 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wallin v. Rappaport 539 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
4 Minnesota Practice, CIVJIG 140 (3d ed. 1986)
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In the tort context, “[pjroximate cause exists if the negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
Kryzer v. Champlin American Legion No. 600 494 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1992
and Peterson v. Fulton, 192 Minn. 360, 365 , 256 N.W.
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Fiedler v. Adams 466 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
see also 4 Minnesota Practice, CIV.
Johnson v. Waletzke 448 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Waletzke 448 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Roemer v. Martin 440 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1989
Roemer v. Martin 440 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1989
Reedon of Faribault, Inc. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Reedon of Faribault, Inc. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lennon v. Pieper 411 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A negligent act is the proximate cause of an injury only (1) where the negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, or (2) where the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated that the act was likely to result in injury to others.
Jondal v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 406 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jondal v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 406 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McIlrath v. College of Saint Catherine 399 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
McIlrath v. College of Saint Catherine 399 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
at 174 n. 7, d at 648 n. 7
Gits v. Norwest Bank Minneapolis 390 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gits v. Norwest Bank Minneapolis 390 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Flow, v. Flow, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 41 at 267-68 (5th ed. 1984).
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by