Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Donaldson v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Duluth, 539 N.W.2d 789.

42 citing documents.

Jane Doe, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
22 plaintiff’s welfare.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, d 789, 792 (Minn. 1995).
Court of Appeals Hudson, J. Dissenting as to Part I, Anderson, J., David Smits, as Trustee for the … Minn. 2022
It is true that traditionally we have been reluctant “to impose liability on others for self-inflicted harm.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth
Waasohn Dorliae, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth
Meagan Abel, Appellant, vs. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, et al., Respondents, St. Mary's University Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“ Typically, the plaintiff is in some respect particularly vulnerable and dependent on the defendant, who in turn holds considerable p ower over the plaint iff’s welfare.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth
In the Matter of the John P. Weitzel and Mary M. Weitzel 2007 Irrevocable Trust F/B/O Terese M. … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court relied on Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth , to conclude that the trustee does not have a special relationship with W.B.
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In a special relationship, “[t]ypically the plaintiff is in some respect particularly vulnerable and dependent on the defendant, who in turn holds considerable power over the plaintiff’s welfare.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth
Pamela Ristau, on behalf of her minor child Mitch Ristau and Mitch Ristau, individually, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth , (“A legal duty to act for the protecti on of another person arises when a special relationship exists between the parties.”).
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jodi L. Toedter, Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Susan Ann Gray v. Winona County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This relationship is frequently found where an institution “such as a hospital or jail has physical custody and control of the person to be protected.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth
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
“‘Typically, the plaintiff is in some respect particularly vulnerable and dependent on the defendant, who in turn holds considerable power over the plaintiff’s welfare.’” (quoting Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, d 789, 792 (Minn. 1995)), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fred Newell v. Timothy Eide, and third party v. Norcostco, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, see also Harper, d at 474 (explaining special relationship may exist where plaintiff has been “deprived of normal opportunities for self-protection”).
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
om sexual abuse by a third party could be found because there was a special relationship between the homeowner and invitee), with H.B., d at 708-09 (holding that a trailer park manager did not owe a duty to protect the minor plaintiffs from sexual abuse by a third party because no special relationship existed between the parties), and Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, (holding that the defendant did not have a legal duty to protect an individual from self-inflicted harm becau
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
Becker v. Mayo Foundation 737 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2007
In Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, we said: “[t]ypically, the plaintiff is in some respect particularly vulnerable and dependent on the defendant, who in turn holds considerable power over the plaintiffs welfare.” see also H.B.
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Laska v. Anoka County 696 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“Typically, the plaintiff is in some respect particularly vulnerable and dependent on the defendant, who in turn holds considerable power over the plaintiffs welfare.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, cf. Harper, d at 474-75 (holding boat owner had no duty to warn social guest that water was too shallow for diving because guest was not vulnerable and had the ability to protect himself).
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Meyer v. Lindala 675 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
D.M.S. v. Barber 627 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
D.M.S. v. Barber 627 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, (finding no “special relationship” existed where relationship lacked the degree of dependence and control necessary).
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp. 615 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
27, 1994); see also Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, (a person generally has no duty to act for the protection of another, even if he or she realizes or should realize that action is necessary).
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mullins v. Churchill 616 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 615 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 2000
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 615 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 2000
See Sandborg, d at 196-97; see also Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, (noting that absent a special relationship a person has no legal duty to act for the protection of another, even if the person realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary).
Bigos v. Kluender 611 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Bigos v. Kluender 611 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Generally, a person haá no duty to protect another, “even if he realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary.” Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, (citation omitted).
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sandborg v. Blue Earth County 601 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965).
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
Gilbertson v. Leininger 599 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1999
See Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, -93 (Minn.1995) (stating that the “duty has most often been found where an institution such as a hospital or jail has physical custody and control of the person to be protected”); see also Harper, d at 475 (finding no special relationship when the defendant did not hold “considerable power over [plaintiff
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sunnarborg v. Howard 581 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, (citations omitted).
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
Vaughn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1997
Donaldson v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n of Duluth, see also Prosser § 56, at 376.
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
HB by and Through Clark v. Whittemore 552 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1996
of Duluth, we held that even where a Y.W.C.A.’s employee had actual knowledge that one of the Y.W.C.A.
Killen v. Independent School District No. 706 547 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1996