Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wagner v. Thomas J. Obert Enterprises, 396 N.W.2d 223.

41 citing documents.

Susan Neegard, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
activities or to maintain the premises in a safe condition.” 229 (Minn. 1986) (applying this standard to the proprietor of a roller -skating rink and affirming jury verdict of no negligence).
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
Soderberg v. Anderson 922 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2019
Soderberg v. Anderson 922 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2019
Along the same lines, in Wagner v.Thomas J. Obert Enterprises , we counted roller skating among other "inherently dangerous sporting events" in which participants assume the risks inherent in the sport.
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC 922 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2019
226 (Minn. 1986) ("One of the few instances where primary assumption of the risk applies is in cases involving patrons of inherently dangerous sporting events ....") As the court of appeals correctly observed in Schneider ex rel.
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DeWitt v. London Road Rental Center, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 35.03 (stating that privilege is waived when “party voluntarily places in controversy the physical, mental, or blood condition of that party”) (emphasis added); (stating that rule applies “[i]f a patient voluntarily places her health in controversy”); Wenninger v. Muesing, 307 Minn. 405, 410 , (“The policy underlying Rule 35.03 is the full disclosure of all relevant medical evidence concerning plaintiffs health when he voluntarily
Donya L. Dawson v. Afton Alps Recreation Area Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Donya L. Dawson v. Afton Alps Recreation Area Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(rollerskating); (golf); Moe v. Steenberg, 275 Minn. 448, 450-51, (ice skating); Peterson ex rel.
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“One of the few instances where primary assumption of risk applies is in cases involving patrons of inherently dangerous sporting events.”
Grady v. Green Acres, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Grady v. Green Acres, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Primary assumption of the risk has been applied in “cases involving patrons of inherently dangerous sporting events.” (rollerskating); (golf); Moe v. Steenberg, 275 Minn. 448, 450-51 , (ice skating); Peterson, d at 793 (skiing); Schneider ex rel.
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
and argues that this constitutes an abuse of discretion.
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(holding that erroneous admission of hearsay medical notes was harmless error when doctor testified and was subject to cross-examination).
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
As to these risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if' the plaintiffs injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.’ ” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ); d *120 343, 351 (Minn.1979) (“[Primary assumption of risk’s] application is dependent upon the plaintiffs manifestation of consent, express or implied, to relieve the defendant of a duty.
Prokop v. Independent School Dist. No. 625 754 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Prokop v. Independent School Dist. No. 625 754 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Primary assumption of risk applies where “parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks.” (quotation omitted).
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Alwin v. St. Paul Saints Baseball Club, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alwin v. St. Paul Saints Baseball Club, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Myers v. Hearth Technologies, Inc. 621 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Doe v. Brainerd International Raceway, Inc. 514 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Baber v. Dill 510 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
As to these risks, the defendant has no duty to protect the plaintiff and, thus, if the plaintiffs injury arises from an incidental risk, the defendant is not negligent.” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ).
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Maras v. City of Brainerd 502 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Wagner v. *79 Thomas J. Obert Enters., rev’d on other grounds
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rusciano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rusciano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
ANALYSIS I. Primary assumption of risk applies “only where the parties have voluntarily entered a relationship in which plaintiff assumes well-known, incidental risks.” (quoting Olson v. Hansen, 299 Minn. 39, 44 , ).
Larson v. Powder Ridge Ski Corp. 432 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson v. Powder Ridge Ski Corp. 432 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Larson also argues that by offering the ticket into evidence, Powder Ridge was attempting to show that decedent not only assumed the risk “involving patrons of inherently dangerous sporting events,” (citing Springrose v. Willmore, 292 Minn. 23, 24 , ), but also the risk of injury as a result of Powder Ridge’s “duty to safely supervise [rope tow] activities or to maintain the premises in a safe condition.” Wagner, d at 226 .
Goodwin v. Legionville School Safety Patrol Training Center, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986
In Re the Welfare of L.Z. 396 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by