Cited by

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

87 citing documents.

Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965).
Kay v. Fairview Riverside Hospital 531 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kay v. Fairview Riverside Hospital 531 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth 526 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
K.L. v. Riverside Medical Center 524 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
K.L. v. Riverside Medical Center 524 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Auto Owners Insurance v. Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota 514 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Auto Owners Insurance v. Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota 514 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
ther hand, although the three farmers are family members, as the trial court noted, “they were not free to ignore the decisions of the group regarding which fields to harvest or plant on a given day.” Appellants contend, however, that the trial court erred in focusing on the overall operation rather than focusing on the instrument causing the injury
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Doe 1-22 v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River 509 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Errico v. Southland Corp. 509 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Errico v. Southland Corp. 509 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(citing Cracraft v. City of St.
Harper v. Herman 499 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1993
Harper v. Herman 499 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 1993
“The fact that an actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another’s aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action * * * unless a special relationship exists * * * between the actor and the other which gives the other the right to protection.” reh’g denied, Jan.
Harper v. Herman 487 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Harper v. Herman 487 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
McClintock v. Roger's Cablesystems of Minneapolis Ltd. Partnership 478 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
McClintock v. Roger's Cablesystems of Minneapolis Ltd. Partnership 478 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Leuer v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Leuer v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
2.Joint Enterprise The two elements of vicarious liability under joint enterprise are set out in another hunting case, : (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.
Peterson v. Fortier 406 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Peterson v. Fortier 406 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hoffman v. Wiltscheck 379 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke 371 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thompson v. Hill 366 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thompson v. Hill 366 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The conduct did not rise to that of a joint enterprise which requires: “(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.”
Olson v. Ische 343 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1984
Olson v. Ische 343 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1984
Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cady 318 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1982
Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cady 318 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1982
482 n.2 (Minn.1979), we set forth the four requirements needed to be proved in order to establish a joint venture.