Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660.

107 citing documents.

Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, there is no duty of care to protect another from harm, even when the individual “realizes or should realize that action on [his or her] part is necessary for another’s aid or protection.”
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court views the evidence “in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (quotation omitted).
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 A negligence cause of action consists of four elements: “(1) existence of a duty of care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) injury.”
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Martin Bell v. Leonard Street and Deinard Professional Association Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (quotation omitted).
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
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arrow Southampton, LLC v. Jeremiah Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In reviewing the record for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (quotation omitted).
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Kay Edenloff v. Maxistorage, LLC, a/k/a Maxistorage 1801, LLC, Maxistorage 1807, LLC and Maxistorage 1711, LLC d/b/a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
criminaliz[ed] sexual conduct with children under the age of consent irrespective of consent”) aff’d
Franklin C. Olson v. Rustic Bar, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In reviewing the record for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (quotation omitted).
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
v. 287 Intermediate Dist., (“This court may not reverse a district court’s denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages absent an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)); aff’d
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Temitope Raufu Ibraheem v. Epic Entertainment, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Temitope Raufu Ibraheem v. Epic Entertainment, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In reviewing the record for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most 3 favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” (quotation omitted).
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Catlin Underwriting Agencies, Ltd. v. ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., f/k/a Square D Company, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, no duty is imposed on an individual to protect another from harm, even when she realizes or should realize that action on her part is necessary for another’s aid or protection.” (quotation omitted).
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
While a party may have an affirmative duty to protect a party from injury if there is a special relationship between the parties, -65 (Minn.2007), in the employment context, this duty arises only where an employee, “acting within the scope of his employment, comes into a position of imminent danger of serious harm.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314B (1965).
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
“Primary assumption of the risk completely negates ,a defendant’s negligence.”
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
defendant’s failure to act does not constitute “substantial assistance.” See, e.g., Failla, 146 F.3d at 158 (granting new trial on aiding-and-abetting claim because jury was asked only whether defendant was aware of the discrimination); Carr, 955 S.W.2d at 836 (“Failure to act or mere presence during the commission of a tort is insufficient for tort accomplice liability.”); (“Generally, no duty is imposed on an individual to protect another from harm....”).
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Co., -71 (Minn.1989) (noting all three bases for imposing liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A); (Hanson, J., concurring) (noting all three bases for imposing liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A); Id.
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The basic elements of a negligence claim are: (1) existence of a duty of care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) injury.”
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
DOMAGALA v. Rolland 787 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
(recognizing that homeowner has special relationship with child invitee sufficient to impose a duty to protect the child from the foreseeable sexual assault of a third party also living in the home); Erickson, d at 169-70 (“The operator or owner of a parking ramp facility has a duty to use re
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009