Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920.

76 citing documents.

Mark Lukens, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minnesota has long recognized that exculpatory clauses must be “strictly construed against the benefited party.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory ... Minn. 2025
Explained Tina Marie Lund, as conservator of the Honorable Fred Karasov v. Calhoun Orange, Inc. d/b/a Orange Theory ... Minn. 2025
7 be “strictly construed against the benefited party” because such provisions are “not favored in the law.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
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
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Minn. 2023
Rental Ctr., Inc., –17 (Minn. 2018) (holding that indemnification clauses that are ambiguous in scope are unenforceable under strict construction); Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., (holding that exculpatory clauses that are ambiguous in scope are unenforceable under strict construction).
Arch Insurance Company, as subrogee of Centre Rental, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Anderson, d at 800; Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., .
Minn. 2022
at 347 (quoting Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., ).
Peter Christiansen, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Brad Christiansen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under certain circumstances, “parties to a contract may, without violation of public policy, protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -23 (Minn. 1982).
Amanda M. Doub, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Citing Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., Doub contends that “gross negligence is something much greater [than ordinary negligence] and therefore outside the constraints of an exculpatory clause, which can only waive ordinary negligence.” The exculpatory clause at issue in Schlobohm was part of a membership contract for a health spa, and it
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A Exculpatory Clause Exculpatory clauses are disfavored in the law and “will be strictly construed against the benefited party.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. TempWorks Management Services, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 925-26 (Minn. 1982) (reversing a district court’s determination on summary judgment that a gym membership contract was a contract of adhesion and the contract’s exculpatory clause was invalid as contrary to public policy); Interfund Corp., d at 88 (examining whether a contract was one of adhesion as a f
Carmen Price, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Technically, an indemnity clause and an exculpatory clause differ in form, but the substantive effect of each to shift liability operates essentially the same under either type of contract clause, and they are usually given the same treatment by the courts.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc ., n.3 (Minn. 1982).
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners' Association, and third party v. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners' Association, and third party v. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -23 (Minn. 1982) (stating that the parties to a contract may use exculpatory clauses to “protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence”).
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gary Carlson v. Ray Barta Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
State v. Wenthe 839 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2013
See, e.g., Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., (noting that a disparity of bargaining power may have occurred if a “health adviser” had directed the appellant to participate in a gym program); cf. Doyle & Rubino, supra, at 561 (discussing power imbalances between clergy and parishioners).
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
In balancing the equities, the court may consider, among other factors, whether the lease is a contract of adhesion, and if the provisions allocating responsibility “are found to be unfair,” may declare such provisions “invalid as being in violation of public policy.” Rausch, 882 A.2d at 815 ; cf. Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -25 (Minn.1982) (explaining that contracts of adhesion, characterized by a disparity of bargaining power between the parties and forced upon an unwilling public for servi
In Re Peer Review Action 749 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Peer Review Action 749 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[P]arties to a contract may, without violation of public policy, protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -23 (Minn.1982) (footnote omitted).
Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc. 712 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Releases It is settled Minnesota law that, under certain circumstances, “parties to a contract may, without violation of public *800 policy, protect themselves against liability resulting from their own negligence.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -23 (Minn.1982).
Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc. 701 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc. 701 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
Exculpatory clauses are “not favored,” and they are “strictly construed against the benefited party.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
Peggy Rose Revocable Trust v. Eppich 640 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2002
See, e.g., Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., (recognizing the public interest in preserving freedom of contract); Rossman v. 740 River Drive, 308 Minn. 134, 136 , (naming the public policy favoring freedom of contract as a potentially dominant factor when weighing the enforceability of certain contractual provisions); Ja
Beehner v. Cragun Corp. 636 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Beehner v. Cragun Corp. 636 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Minnesota recognizes the validity of exculpatory clauses, but they are disfavored and “strictly construed against the benefited party.” Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
In Re the Trusteeship of Williams 591 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Trusteeship of Williams 591 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., review denied (Minn. March 21, 1986), Minnesota courts examined exculpatory clauses generally and held that such clauses are valid so long as two conditions are met.
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. LTV Steel Mining Co. 568 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
An exculpatory clause does not necessarily contravene public policy and may be valid in certain circumstances; however, this type of agreement is “not favored in the law.”
Bunia v. Knight Ridder 544 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bunia v. Knight Ridder 544 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
To uphold the clause against the public policy claim, the Pioneer Press relies on Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Nimis v. St. Paul Turners 521 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Nimis v. St. Paul Turners 521 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 519 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 519 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., (exculpatory clauses not favored in Minnesota).
Share Health Plan, Inc. v. Marcotte 495 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Share Health Plan, Inc. v. Marcotte 495 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See generally Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., -25 (Minn.1982) (discussing elements of adhesion contracts).'
Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 798 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990