Cited by

Summary judgment is appropriate on a claim for negligence “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any one of these four elements: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of duty being the proximate cause of the injury.” (quotation omitted).

d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

reasonable care to invitees may “require [the landowner] to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him, against [a] known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm.” –58 (Minn. 1966) (quotation omitted); (observing that a landowner has no duty of care to invitees if the “danger is known or obvious to them, unless the [landowner] should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviou

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Senogles v. Carlson , see also Minn. R. Civ.

P. 56.01; Senogles v. Carlson

P. 56.01; Senogles v. Carlson

“A material fact 5 is one of such a nature as will affect the result or outcome of the case depending on its resolution,” -60 (Minn. 1976), and inferences and doubts about material facts are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party

But summary judgment is a “blunt instrument,” and it should not be granted if “reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” (quotations omitted).

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965), which the supreme court has adopted, creates an exception to the duty, and then “carves out an exception to the exception.”

Summary judgment should not be granted “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.”

Summary judgment “is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017).

DECISION Summary judgment “is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017).

Summary judgment is appropriate only “when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Senogles v. Carlson

DECISION Summary judgment “is appropriate when th ere is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017).

In a negligence action, the district cour t may grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any one of these four elements: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2 ) a breach of that du ty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of duty being the proximate cause of the injury.” (quotation omitted).

“Summary judgment is a blunt instrument that should not be granted when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” (quotation omitted).

See Senogles v. Carlson , n.2 (Minn. 2017) (noting that “on a motion for summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court should decide the case as a matter of law without submitting it to the jury”); see also Vassallo, d at 465 (concluding that the deputy was entitled to official immunity where the

“A landowner generally has a continuing duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants.” (quotation omitted).

See Senogles v. Carlson , (citing Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC , ).

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017).

The record is viewed “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” (citation omitted).

“Summary judgment is a blunt instrument that should not be granted when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” (quotation omitted).