Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lundgren v. Fultz, 354 N.W.2d 25.

89 citing documents.

Joe Schafer, et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of Minor W.S., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
10, 1992); (noting that there is no duty to control a person’s conduct to prevent harm “unless the harm is foreseeable”) .
Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Instead, a professional can owe a duty of care to the parents of a child who was harmed by negligent advice from the child’s physician, or a threatened individual who was harmed by a negligent action of a patient’s psychiatrist, -29 (Minn. 1984).
Nanette Brooks, parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nanette Brooks, parents and natural guardians of minor A.B. v. Tracy Crudo individually, and as ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
Jenny Pachicano, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[W]hen the issue of foreseeability is clear, the court, as a matter of law, should decide it, but in close cases, the issue of foreseeability is for the jury.” Senogles, d at 43; see also Montemayor, d at 629; & n.3 (Minn. 2011); Bjerke v. Johnson , -68 (Minn. 2007); Ill.
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Se-bright Prods., Inc., , 27 n.3 (Minn. 2011); -68 (Minn. 2007) (citing Whiteford, d at 918 ); III.
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Further, “[w]hen the issue of foreseeability is clear, the courts, as a matter of law, should decide it,” but “[ijn close cases, the question of foreseeability is for the jury.” Whiteford, d at 918 ; see also Domagala, d at 27 n.3; -68 (Minn. 2007)
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-27 (Minn. 1984) for the principle that Hiawatha Valley owed a “professional duty” to Gray.
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
But we have continued to recognize that generally “[i]n law, we are not our brother’s keeper.” Lundgren v. Fultz, *23
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.”).
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“Implicit in the duty to control is the ability to control.”
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
Molloy v. Meier 679 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2004
-29 (Minn.1984) (psychiatrist owed duty to third party where patient threatens foreseeable harm to that party and psychiatrist has the ability to control the risk of harm); , 25 n. 7, 26 (Minn.1982) (treatment facility may owe duty to warn identifiable third parties of violent propensi
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Molloy v. Meier 660 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 632 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2001
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 632 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2001
Co., -69 (Minn.1989); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(1)-(2) (noting that common carriers owe a duty to take reasonable action to protect their passengers and innkeepers owe a similar duty to their guests).
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
for the proposition that close questions of foreseeability are properly jury questions.
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp. 582 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1998
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anders v. Trester 562 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
(“The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed * * *.”) (quoting Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 553 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1996
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Johnson v. State 536 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
the court stated that “[i]mplicit in the duty to control is the ability to control.” Here, the state continued to have a duty to control Stewart.
Cooney v. Hooks 535 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1995
Cooney v. Hooks 535 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1995
HB BY AND THROUGH CLARKE v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
H.B. ex rel. Clarke v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
HB BY AND THROUGH CLARKE v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(no duty to protect or control unless harm is foreseeable).
H.B. ex rel. Clarke v. Whittemore 533 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(no duty to protect or control unless harm is foreseeable).
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1995
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 1995
Opay v. Howard Lake Liquor Store 531 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1995