Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kwapien v. Starr, 400 N.W.2d 179.

30 citing documents.

Jill Marie Kalisch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Future medical expenses will not be awarded “based on a showing that expenses are likely to occur” without “some evidence of what the expenses will be.”
Severin M. Chmielewski, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court may grant remittitur on the grounds that a jury entered an excessive verdict “under the influence of passion and prejudice or on the ground that the damages are not justified by the evidence.”
Cheryl Orcutt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
‘the plaintiff must prove the reasonable certainty of such expenses by a fair preponderance of the evidence .’” Lind v. Slowinski , (quoting Kwapien v. Starr , ), (citation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Feb.
Timothy Wodarck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
10, 1989); -84 (Minn. App. 1987).
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Likewise, this court upheld a future-damages award based on a physician’s testimony that the plaintiff’s condition “was permanent and essentially ‘incurable’” and that she would be “required to undergo physical therapy or similar treatment to relieve her pain for the rest of her life.” Id.
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The jury is not permitted to “award any amount based on a showing that expenses are likely to occu r. The plaintiff must also present some evidence of what the expenses will be.”
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Remittitur may be granted on the ground that an excessive verdict appears to have been given under the 3 influence of passion and prejudice or on the ground that the damages are not justified by the evidence.”
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erin Shegrud v. Garner Berry Eeg, Christa Blumer, State Farm Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Shegrud had the burden of proving “the 7 reasonable certainty of [medical] expense by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
Alan Klapmeier v. Cirrus Industries, Inc., Cirrus Holding Company, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Future damages “are impossible to prove with absolute certainty, [and] the rule is that recovery may be had if future damage is reasonably certain to occur.”
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark L. Wiebusch v. Donald Leo Tschida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The lack of financial testimony is not critical; “[b]ecause future damages such as this are impossible to prove with absolute certainty, the rule is that recovery may be had if future damage is reasonably certain to occur.”
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Samuel Deweese, (A13-2152), (A13-2160) v. Lakeview Clinic, Ltd., (A13-2152), (A13-2160). Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court may grant remittitur “on the ground that an excessive verdict appears to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice or on the ground that the damages are not justified by the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[E]xperts must base their opinions on facts sufficient to form an adequate foundation for the opinion and should not be allowed to speculate.”
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
An appellate court will not reverse the grant or denial of a motion for remitti-tur unless there was “a clear abuse of discretion.”
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
Likewise, a trial court exercises discretion in granting or denying remittitur, and appellate courts will not reverse unless there was “a clear abuse of discretion.”
Simpson v. American Family Insurance Co. 603 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Simpson v. American Family Insurance Co. 603 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Carpenter v. Nelson, 257 Minn. 424, 427
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1995
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1995
See, (stating trial court found expert testimony “speculative and lacking foundation”); Wohlfeil v. Murray Mach., Inc., (stating trial court found expert testimony was “sheer speculation”).
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midway National Bank v. Estate of Bollmeier 504 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
258, 261 , 21 P.2d 117 , 118 (1933)), -84 (Minn.App.1987).
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Lind v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1990