Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sirek v. State, Department of Natural Resources, 496 N.W.2d 807.

37 citing documents.

Jonathan David Fritz, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
able for injuries caused by an artificial condition the municipality created or maintained “only if (1) the artificial condition is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm; (2) the landowner has actual knowledge of that danger; and (3) the danger is concealed or hidden from the trespasser.” (-10 (Minn. 1993), and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 335 (Am.
Freedom Kerkula, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Grace Elizabeth Bettie, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Wade S. Nukala, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Freedom Kerkula, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
James Ariola as next of kin and trustee for Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son v. The City of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Recreational-use immunity “does not wholly absolve [governmental agencies] from liability, it enables them to treat visitors, in the tort context, as trespassers rather 6 than licensees or invitees.” Sirek by Beaumaster v. State, Dept. of Natural Res.
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
White v. Many Rivers West Ltd. Partnership 797 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Cf. Sirek by Beaumaster v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., (relieving a landowner’s duty to warn children where “small children are being watched by their parents” (quotation omitted)).
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Sirek v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res., (holding that child-trespasser standard did not apply to child injured while visiting state trails with her parents because unaccompanied children *915 did not frequent isolated state trail).
Habeck v. Ouverson 669 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Habeck v. Ouverson 669 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Beaumaster v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 cmt.
Stiele Ex Rel. Gladieux v. City of Crystal 646 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Stiele Ex Rel. Gladieux v. City of Crystal 646 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
As the supreme court noted in Sirek by Beaumaster v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, section 339 does not apply where dangers “may reasonably be expected to be understood and appreciated by any child of an age to be allowed at large.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 cmt.
Lishinski v. City of Duluth 634 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Lishinski v. City of Duluth 634 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Under section 335, “a landowner will be liable only for failing to exercise reasonable care to warn trespassers about hidden, artificial dangers created or maintained by the landowner.” Sirek v. State, Dep’t of Natural Res.
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Fear v. Independent School District 911 634 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Therefore, recreational immunity “does not wholly absolve state agencies from liability, rather it enables them to treat visitors, in the tort context, as trespassers rather than licensees or invitees.” Sirek by Beawmaster v. State, Dept. of Natural Res.
Lundstrom v. City of Apple Valley 587 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lundstrom v. City of Apple Valley 587 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, -10 (Minn.1993) (limiting application to general trespasser standard of section 335).
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthy 567 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1997
McCarthy asserts that Sirek by Beaumaster v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, dictates this outcome.
Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 541 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 541 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Section 339, however, does not apply to situations that “ ‘may reasonably be expected to be understood and appreciated by any child of an age to be allowed at large.’ ” Sirek v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 cmt.
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 527 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority 527 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(quoting Sirek v. State Dep’t of Natural Resources, ).
Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Martinez v. Minnesota Zoological Gardens 526 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sirek by Beaumaster v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources
Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
Steinke v. City of Andover 525 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1994
In Sirek v. State Dep’t of Natural Resources, we held that “a landowner will be liable only for failing to exercise reasonable care to warn trespassers about hidden, artificial dangers created or maintained by the landowner.” (emphasis added).
Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
Johnson v. Washington County 518 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1994
3(h) (1992), which grants the state and its employees limited immunity from liability arising from the use of state parks, “except that the state is liable for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person.” Sirek v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, (quoting Minn.Stat.
Johnson v. Washington County 506 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Zacharias v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 506 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Zacharias v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 506 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See, e.g., Sirek by Beaumaster v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, (state immune for injuries to six-year-old girl who ran in front of car while crossing a trunk highway within a state park); Cobb v. State, Dep’t of Natural Resources, (no liability for injury on a dock where there was no evidence of a concealed danger likely to cau