Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harpel v. Fall, 65 N.W. 913.

34 citing documents.

Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520, 524 , 65 N.W.
Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
We agree with the trial court that “To require one to use that care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same *507 or similar circumstances can hardly be onerous, unreasonable or oppressive.” The following Minnesota authorities may be referred to in support of defendants’ position: Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 12
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520, 523-524 , .
Ryberg v. Ebnet 15 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1944
Ryberg v. Ebnet 15 N.W.2d 456 Minn. 1944
Co. 129 Minn. 496 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 1149; Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , .
Normandin v. Freidson 233 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
Normandin v. Freidson 233 N.W. 14 Minn. 1930
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Barron v. Leidloff, 95 Minn. 474 , .
Cederberg v. Nelson 228 N.W. 352 Minn. 1929
Cederberg v. Nelson 228 N.W. 352 Minn. 1929
Defendant claims that the facts bring this case within the doctrine of Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , , and the cases approving that doctrine.
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , 1
Mix v. Downing 222 N.W. 913 Minn. 1929
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , 65 N.W.
Nickelsen v. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railway 209 N.W. 646 Minn. 1926
Nickelsen v. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railway 209 N.W. 646 Minn. 1926
223 ; Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keegan v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 129 Minn. 496 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 1149.
Martinson v. Neubert 185 N.W. 651 Minn. 1921
Martinson v. Neubert 185 N.W. 651 Minn. 1921
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , , which had application only to the habitable condition of .the premises, is not pertinent to a case like this.
Keegan v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 152 N.W. 877 Minn. 1915
Keegan v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. 152 N.W. 877 Minn. 1915
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Moore v. Parker, 63 Kan.
Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
Daley v. Towne 149 N.W. 368 Minn. 1914
This is the rule *233 stated in Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , , to wbicb tbe later cases refer as authority.
Ames v. Brandvold 138 N.W. 786 Minn. 1912
Ames v. Brandvold 138 N.W. 786 Minn. 1912
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Wilkinson v. Clauson, 29 Minn. 91 , ; Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 385 , .
Farley v. Byers 118 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1908
Farley v. Byers 118 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1908
If the facts bring the case within the rule of Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , , or Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 385 , , 43 Am.
Barron v. Liedloff 104 N.W. 289 Minn. 1905
Barron v. Liedloff 104 N.W. 289 Minn. 1905
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , .
Kayser v. Lindell 75 N.W. 1038 Minn. 1898
Kayser v. Lindell 75 N.W. 1038 Minn. 1898
Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , .
Tvedt v. Wheeler 72 N.W. 1062 Minn. 1897
Tvedt v. Wheeler 72 N.W. 1062 Minn. 1897
The defendant claims that, as owner of the building, he is not liable to the employees of his lessee, while the latter is in possession thereof, for any injuries sustained by them by reason of any defects therein; that this case falls within the rule laid down in Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , .