Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Delgado v. Lohmar, 289 N.W.2d 479.

87 citing documents.

Erica Robinson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Joint enterprise liability exists when there is “(1) a mutual understanding for a common purpose, and (2) a right to a voice in the direction and control of the means used to carry out the common purpose.”
Brian Vitek as Trustee for the next-of-kin of Patric Vitek, deceased, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The supreme court in Delgado v. Lohmar reasoned that whether the defendants knew that the plaintiff was on the property created a fact issue as to duty because a person “bearing firearms who has knowingly set foot onto the land of another without his knowledge or consent has created an unreasonable risk of harm to those lawfully on the property.” –84 (Minn. 1979).
Troy David Mack, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In general, “a person does not owe a duty of care to another —e.g., to aid, protect, or warn that person—if the harm is caused by a third party’s conduct.” Doe 169, d at 177-78 ().
Meagan Abel, Appellant, vs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., Respondents, St. Mary's University Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
a -b (1965); -84 (Minn. 1979) (listing categories of special relationships).
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
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
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota courts have also found that a special relationship exists for those “who have custody of a person with dangerous propensities,” 4 (Minn. 1979), or for daycare providers.
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 872 (-84 (Minn.1979) (“Such special relationships exist between parents and children, masters and servants, possessors of land and licensees, common carriers and-their customers, or people who have custody of a person with dangerous propensities.'”)).
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
In so holding, our seminal special relationship case: We have previously stated that an affirmative duty to act only arises when a special relationship exists between the parties.
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
( (alteration in original)).
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
(“Ordinarily, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless a special relationship exists, either between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty to control, or between the actor and the other which gives the other the
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Generally, no duty is imposed on an individual to protect another from harm, even when she “realizes or should realize that action on [her] part is necessary for another’s aid or protection.”
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 314, 315 (1965).
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
These four requirements are “(1) contribution by all parties, (2) joint proprietorship and control, (3) sharing of profits but not necessarily of losses, and (4) a contract.” , 482 n. 2 (Minn.1979) (citing Treichel v. Adams, 280 Minn. 132 , Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc., 236 Minn. 230 , ).
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-84 (Minn.1979) (noting “special relationships exist between parents and children, masters and servants, possessors of land and licensees, common carriers and their customers, or people who have custody of a person with dangerous propensities”).
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
in their briefs, Delgado is cited in both Harper and Gilbertson and is essential to understanding the line of special relationship cases.
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
Fisher v. County of Rock 596 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1999
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations 582 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1998
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
In Delgado v. Lohmar, the court observed that such “special relationships exist between parents and children, masters and servants, possessors of land and licensees, common carriers and their customers, or people who have custody of a person with dangerous propensities.” -84 (Minn.1979) (emphasis added).
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 539 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 539 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1995
(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965)).
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995