Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Baber v. Dill, 531 N.W.2d 493.

63 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If no duty exists there is no need to determine whether a person assumed the risk thus relieving the defendant of the duty.” (emphasis added); see also Grady, d at 550 (“The first step in determining whether primary assumption of the risk applies is to determine whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.” (quotation omitted)).
Jacob Pries, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Whitewater argues relatedly that it owed Pries no duty because his own conduct caused his injury
Travis J Maahs, a Minnesota resident, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that there is “no duty to an invitee where the anticipated harm involves dangers so obvious that no warning is necessary”).
Ana Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A landowner owes no duty to warn “where the anticipated harm involves dangers so obvious that no warning is necessary.”
Suzanne Krupp, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Baber v. Dill , -96 (Minn. 1995) (“A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any .
Brandon Grim, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Baber v. Dill , 5-96 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).
LeAnn Wilbourn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mary Ellen Spinler, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that “no one needs notice of what he knows or reasonably may be expected to know” (quotation omitted)).
Ransford Frimpong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
David Homick, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Steven Elliot Rousseau, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “[a] possessor of land is not liable to his invitee for physical harm caus ed to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” -96 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).
Charlotte Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Joe Carlson Senogles, as parent and guardian of Shungmanitou Washtay Kihega, a minor v. Peter Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-96 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A).
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) (1965); (acknowledging Minnesota’s long-standing application of the restatement standard).
Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Martin L. Harris v. Lang Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Creekside Gables Minn. Ct. App. 2015
has no duty to an invitee where the anticipated harm involves dangers so obvious that no warning is necessary.”
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A possessor of land, however, has no duty to an invitee where the anticipated harm involves dangers so obvious that no warning is necessary.” d 493, 496 (Minn. 1995).
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
“Before a court considers assumption of risk, it should first determine whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.”
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Renswick v. Wenzel 819 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The supreme court has acknowledged that the distinction between an obvious condition that requires anticipation of harm and an obvious condition that does not require anticipation of harm “is a fíne one.”
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
This is the first step because “[i]f no duty exists there is no need to determine whether a person assumed the risk thus relieving the defendant of the duty.”
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
Olmanson v. LeSueur County 693 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 2005
has adopted Restatement (See-ond) of Torts § 343A, subsection (1), which states: “A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) (1965); -96 (Minn.1995) (citing Peterson v. W.T.
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Border State Bank of Greenbush v. Bagley Livestock Exchange, Inc. 690 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
On review, an appellate court “must independently determine whether an issue of fact exists when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-96 (Minn.1995) (citing Peterson v. W.T.
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
Schneider Ex Rel. Schneider v. Erickson 654 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Schneider Ex Rel. Schneider v. Erickson 654 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that “[i]f no duty exists there is no need to determine whether a person assumed the risk thus relieving the defendant of the duty”); Mailand, d at 351 (stating that for primary assumption of the risk to apply as a complete bar to the plaintiffs recovery, it must be shown that the pl
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club 614 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000