Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Foss v. Kincade, 766 N.W.2d 317.

36 citing documents.

Jewel Eskew v. Darrell Luhmann Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Jewel Eskew v. Darrell Luhmann Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Whether a plaintiff’s injury is foreseeable, however, depends on “whether the 10 specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.”
Cole Clark, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kathleen Corte, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Village Homes of Grandview Square II Association, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 317, 320 (Minn. 2009).
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
Moving to the foreseeability of the harm, “we ‘look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simp ly whether it was with in the realm of any conceivable possibility.’ ” (quoting Whiteford ex rel.
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
" Foss v. Kincade , , 322 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Whiteford ex rel.
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
" Foss v. Kincade , , 322 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Whiteford ex rel.
Jennifer Smith, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Zoeie Meister, a minor, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Citing this court’s aff’d, the district court concluded that, when small children are being watched by their parents, a landowner may be relieved of a d uty to remove, or warn the children about, a dangerous instrumentality, the danger from which is apparent.
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
See Foss v. Kincade , , 320 (Minn. 2009) (reviewing de novo the existence of a legal duty); State Farm Fire & Cas.
Lana Schulz, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
“When determining whether a danger is foreseeable, we ‘look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.’ ” (quoting Whiteford, d at 918 ).
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
No. 300, LaCrescent, (agreeing with the court of appeals’ decision to address, “in the interest[s] of judicial economy,” an issue that was raised below but not resolved by the district court).
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Greve v. Breezy Point International, Inc. d/b/a Breezy Point Resort Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(premises-liability negligence case).
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Williams v. Smith 820 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
-23 (Minn.2009); Lee & Lindahl, supra § 3.48.
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
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Miller v. Lankow 776 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Miller v. Lankow 776 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(“A [spoliation] sanction is only appropriate if the unavailability of the evidence results in prejudice to the opposing party.”).