Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806.

63 citing documents.

Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
The only defenses against a dog-bite claim are those built into the law, which are when the 15 dog-bite victim (1) provokes the dog or (2) fails “to peaceably conduct [themselves] in any place where [they] may lawfully be.”
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eugene C. Banks v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute.”
Minn. 2021
d 806, 810 (Minn. 1981) (noting that “negligence per se is not liability per se” and that a defendant can still asse rt lack of proximate cause in the event a plaintiff establishes duty and breach via a negligence per se theory of liability).
John Doe 121, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N In its simplest terms, negligence consists of “a departure fro m a standard of conduct required by the law for the protection of others against unreas onable risk of harm.” (quotations omitted).
Clark v. Connor 843 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. 817 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2012
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Engquist v. Loyas 803 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2011
Previously, we have interpreted the dog-attack statute in three cases that are relevant to this dispute: Lavalle v. Kaupp, 240 Minn. 360
Anderson v. Christopherson 802 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. Christopherson 802 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Lavalle v. Kaupp, 240 Minn. 360, 363-64 , -31 (1953).
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Engquist Ex Rel. Engquist v. Loyas 787 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
Anderson v. State, Department of Natural Resources 693 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 2005
“Negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute.”
Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
Gradjelick v. Hance 646 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2002
See, e.g., Alderman’s, -10 (Minn.1995) (addressing fire codes specifically); (explaining negligence per se).
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Petition of Metro Siding, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re Petition of Metro Siding, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Negligence is “a departure from a standard of conduct required by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.” (quoting William L. Prosser, Contributory Negligence as a Defense to Violation of a Statute, 32 Minn. L.Rev.
VanWagner v. Mattison 533 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
VanWagner v. Mattison 533 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
There can be no contributory negligence as a matter of law when “the statute was intended * * * for the protection of a limited class of persons from their inability to protect themselves.” (quoting Dart, 223 Minn. at 535 , d at 560 ).
Mueller v. Theis 512 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mueller v. Theis 512 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Iacona v. Schrupp 509 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Iacona v. Schrupp 509 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Dart v. Pure Oil Co., 223 Minn. 526, 535
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Schendel v. Hennepin County Medical Center 484 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of J.G.B. 473 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber 465 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1991
Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber 465 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1991
ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ERICKSON BY ERICKSON v. Hammermeister 458 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
*174 (quoting Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 154 , ).
Lewellin Ex Rel. Lewellin v. Huber 456 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lewellin Ex Rel. Lewellin v. Huber 456 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co. 454 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1990
-76 (Minn.1986), -13 (Minn.1981).
Tomfohr v. Mayo Foundation 450 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
Tomfohr v. Mayo Foundation 450 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
Grams v. Howard's O.K. Hardware Co. 446 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Grams v. Howard's O.K. Hardware Co. 446 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the supreme court construed section 347.22 to create absolute liability for dog owners subject only to the two defenses contained within the statute: 1) provocation and 2) failure to conduct oneself peaceably in any place where one may lawfully be.
Boitz v. Preblich 405 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by