Cited by

To determine whether a danger is foreseeable for purposes of a negligence claim, courts “look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.” (quotation omitted) ; see also Domagala, d at 27 (“The test is not whether the precise nature and manner of the plaintiff’s injury was foreseeable, but whether the possibility of an accident was clear to the person of ordinary prudence.” (quotation omitted)).

But this general rule is subject to “two exceptions.” Fenrich v. Blake School

See Senogles, d at 43, 47 – 48; –07 (Minn. 2018); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 629–31 (Minn. 2017).

Fenrich v. The Blake School

Fenrich v. The Blake Sch ., -02 (Minn. 2018).

Initially, the claim largely parallels the elements of a traditional negligence claim: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, (“Stating the obvious, this era’s drivers are distracted on a regular basis by their apparent need to remain in constant communication on their cell phones.” (quotation omitted)); Kraus v. Saffert, 293 N.W.

d 195, 201 (Minn. 2018).

Appellate courts review a grant of summary 6 judgment de novo, viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party” and resolving “all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” (quotation omitted).

A. We begin by considering whether the supreme court’s applies to this case.

16 A. Foreseeability To determine whether a danger is foreseeable for purposes of a negligence claim, courts “look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.” (quotation omitted).

“I n conducting this review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” (quotation omitted).

and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y].” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant in a negligence action is entitled to summary judgment when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on any of the four elements necessary for recovery: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury.” (quotation omitted).

Id.; see also Fenrich v. Th e Blake Sch., (stating that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party).

“In conducting this review, [appellate courts] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

6 this review, [appellate courts] view the ev idence in the light mo st favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

See Warren v. Dinter , (emphasizing the summary judgment standard when resolving a duty of care issue in a professional negligence case); d 195, 206–07 (Minn. 2018) (highlighting the significance of procedural posture when deciding “a close 10 call” on an appeal from a grant of summary judgment).

“In conducting this review, [appellate courts] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolv e all doubts and factual infe rences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

“In conducting this review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review the district court’s decision de novo and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” (quotation omitted).

There are two instances, however, where “a negligent defendant may be held liable to a plaintiff for harm caused by a third party.”

and re solve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties.” Fenrich v. The Blake School , (quotation omitted).

But it is clear from Fenrich v. The Blake School , Senogles, Montemayor

In order to prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury.” (quotation omitted).

-07 (Minn. 2018) (holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether school engaged in misfeasance in supervising a f ield trip and whether there was a foreseeable risk to a foreseeable plaintiff).

And summary judgment is inappropriate on the issue of duty “when reasonable persons might draw different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Fenrich v. The Blake Sch ., (quotations omitted).

See, –06 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that summary judgment is improper when “view[ing] all of the evidence and the reasonable D-3 inferences from it in favor of the non-moving party,” a “close call” on the disputed issue is presented); Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., (concluding

if the harm is caused by a third party’s conduct.’” (quoting Doe 169 v. Brandon, -78 (Minn. 2014)).

Fenrich v. The Blake School , , 201 (Minn. 2018) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Fenrich v. The Blake School