Cited by

“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.”

That means we consider “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.”

That means we consider “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.” (Minn. 2 Because the loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of the negligence claim, we focus our analysis on the negligence claim.

(stating that a risk of harm is obvious if the dangerous condition and risk are apparent and recognizable to a reasonable person exercising ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgment).

ner “has a continuing duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all entrants,” but this duty is not without exception; indeed, a landowner “is not liable to his invitee for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the [landowner] should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965)).

A plaintiff in a negligence action must establish four elements: “(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.”

Negligence consists of “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.”

d 314, 318 (Minn. 2001).

d 314, 318 (Minn. 2001).

9 the injured party actually saw the danger, but whether it was in fact visible.”

Louis v. Louis , , 321 (Minn. 2001).

Louis v. Louis , , 318 (Minn. 2001).

The elements of negligence are: “(1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an inju ry; and (4) the breach of the duty being the proximate cause of the injury.”

D E C I S I O N Appellate courts “review a district court’s grant of summary judgment to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.”

at 322; -21 (Minn. 2001) (explaining that duty based on special-relationship theory is separate and distinct from duty based on premises -liability theory, and holding that, where negligence claim is based on premises-liability theory, whether there is a duty owed by landowner does not depend on existence of special

“A possessor of land is not liable to [its] invitee 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 desp ite such knowledge or obviousness.” (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.”

To be known or obvious, a danger “must not only be known to exist, but it must also be recognized that it is dangerous.”

“The existence of a legal duty [of care] is an issue for the court to determine as a matter of law.”

The rule that Carleton is not liable for known or obvious dangerous conditions does not apply if Carleton “should have anticipated the harm despite its known or obvious nature.” Minn. (1997); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A cmt.

“[A] landowner has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.” (quotations omitted).