Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., 324 N.W.2d 207.

45 citing documents.

Nereus Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., d/b/a Bright Technologies, and third party v. VZ Hogs, LLP, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nereus Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., d/b/a Bright Technologies, and third party v. VZ Hogs, LLP, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stated another way, a manufacturer has a duty to design a product that does not present an unreasonable risk of harm associated with “reasonably foreseeable use[s].” Bilotta, d at 621 (quoting Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., ).
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
there is essentially no difference between strict liability and negligence.’ ” (quoting Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., )).
Weber v. Tuck 620 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Weber v. Tuck 620 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., a case involving an “aerial ladder,” the supreme court addressed the “latent-patent danger rule which relieves a manufacturer from liability if the dangers of his product are obvious to the user.” Noting that Minnesota law requires an analysis of comparative fault, the supreme court rejected the late
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., (citing Bilotta, d at 621 ; Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., Frey, d at 786 ; Clark v. Rental Equip.
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
See Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., -13 (Minn.1982).
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Southern Minnesota MacHinery Sales, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., (quoting Micallef v. Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376, 385-86 , 348 N.E.2d 571, 577-78 , 384 N.Y.S.2d 115, 120-21 (1976) (emphasis added).
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*182 Appellant claims the general rule articulated in Busch has been changed by subsequent supreme court decisions in Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., and Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., opinion after remand, pet.
Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
Huber v. Niagara MacH. and Tool Works 430 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1988
Penney Co., -15 (Minn.1982) (Simonett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
We have likewise adopted a similar approach citing with approval Micallef v. Miehle Co. in Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc.
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., (citing Wade, Strict Tort Liability of Manufacturers, 19 Sw.
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Distinguished Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Neither McCormick nor Magnuson is applicable here (although each included a claim of defect in design), and both cases are distinguishable in light of Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
See, Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Clark v. Rental Equipment Co., 300 Minn. 420, 426
Mix v. MTD Products, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mix v. MTD Products, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., held that a product design challenged as defective must be evaluated under a reasonable care balancing test, with obviousness of the danger simply a factor in the balance.
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., (rejecting the “consumer expectation” standard in favor of the “reasonable care” balancing test).
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This parallel was noted in the dissenting opinion in Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., : “As a practical matter, where the strict liability claim is based on* * * failure to warn * * * there is essentially no difference between strict liability and negligence.” Id.
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
*355 In Bilotta the court held that an additional instruction is necessary in a : A manufacturer is obligated to exercise that degree of care in his plan or design so as to avoid any unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who is likely to be exposed to the danger when the product is used in the manner for which the product was intended, as well as an unintended yet reasonably foresee
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc.
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Easterlund claims this is an inconsistent and irreconcilable verdict, relying upon Halvorson v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 307 Minn. 48 , (overruled on other grounds, ).
Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp. 347 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1984
Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp. 347 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1984
In Holm v. Sponco Manufacturing, Inc., we cited authority to the effect that a manufacturer’s duty regarding defective products extended to “anyone who is likely to be exposed to danger when the product is used in the manner for which the product was intended, as well as an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable use.” Id.
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc. 346 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1984