Cited by

“[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.”

A party cannot overcome a motion for summary judgment with “unverified and conclusory 23 allegations.” ().

“Any doubt as to whether issues of material fact exist is resolved in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” 1 (Minn. 1995) (citing Rathbun v. W.T.

” Lubbers v. Anderson , (quotation omitted) .

For Johnson’s claim to survive summary judgment, he must have offered evidence sufficient to establish “(1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an 4 injury was sustained; and (4) breach of the duty was the proximate cause of the i njury.”

6 Lubbers v. Anderson , see George v. Est .

When, as here, the defendant moves for summary judgment, the motion must be granted when the record lacks proof of “an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

The decision in Back II was based on the holdings of State v. Cantrell , (determining th at culpable negligence requires the existence of a duty), (stating that whether a person owes a duty of care “is an issue for the court to determine as a ma tter of law”), (explaining that th e existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence claim).

Lubbers v. Anderson , (Minn. 1 Boyum did not appeal the grant of summary judgment on his claim of negligence per se.

“The essential elements of a negligence claim are: (1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an injury was sustained; and (4) breach of the duty was the proximate cause of the injury.” Lubbers v. Anderson

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as 6 a matter of law when the record reflects a com plete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

A party cannot preserve a right to a trial on the merits merely by “postulating evidence which might be developed at trial.” Lubbers v. Anderson , (quotation omitted).

” Lubbers v. Anderson , (quotation omitted).

(“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”).

10 Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 11.40 (2018)

See Lubbers v. Anderson , , 401 (Minn. 1995) ("A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim.").

Summary judgment should be granted for the defendant “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essentia l element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

Summary judgment should be granted for the defendant “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.” see also DLH , d at 69-71 (detailing the summary-judgment standard).

While the supreme court has rejected but-for causation because “it converts events both near and far, which merely set the stage for an accident, into a convoluted series of causes of the accident,” see Lubbers v. Anderson , (quotation omitted), this case doe s not involve an attenuated causal chain like the one at issue in Lubbers.

“In reviewing the record, we view the evide nce in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995).

In doing so, appellate courts “view the evidence in the light mos t favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted ,” 6 Lubbers v. Anderson , and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving party, Rochester City Lines

Summary judgment should be granted for the defendant “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintif f’s claim.”

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

Conduct was the proximate cause of an injury where it “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Lubbers v. Anderson

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

v. Aquila Inc., (“We have held that, upon a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party cannot preserve a right to trial on the merits merely by referring to ‘unverified or conclusory allegations’ in the pleadings or by speculating about evidence that may be developed at trial.” ()).

Ride Auto argues that we may review the denial of summary judgment if the district court’s decision was “based on purely legal grounds,” rev’d and asserts that whether “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiffs claim” is a question of law

“A defendant is entitled to summary judgmen t as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.”

(holding that summary disposition is appropriate when “the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim”).

“Generally, proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury; however, where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion, proximate cause is a question of law.” (citation omitted).