Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sutherland v. Barton, 570 N.W.2d 1.

38 citing documents.

Doe A.S., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-5 (Minn. 1997) (discussing the difference between “direct liability” and “vicarious liability” in the context of a negligence claim).
Jacob Pries, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although the supreme court has in only limited circumstances held “a hiring company liable for injuries to an independent contractor’s employees,” the hiring company, as a landowner, has a duty to use reasonable care toward an entrant and may be directly liable for breaching that duty , –02 (Minn. 1981).
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James R. Martin, Patrick S. Martin v. Mid-America Festivals Corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Landowners have a 6 duty ‘to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.’” ().
Ana Thompson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk.” (quotation omitted).
Vickie M. Jones, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. Brown, d 1 Jones also argues that the district court erred by permitting Smilanich’s expert witness to testify.
O'Brien & Wolf, LLP v. S. Cent. Minn. Elec. Workers' Family Health Plan 923 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
O'Brien & Wolf, LLP v. S. Cent. Minn. Elec. Workers' Family Health Plan 923 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Sutherland v. Barton , , 5 (Minn. 1997) (stating that an individual is directly liable for breaching a duty to another through his own negligent act).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
-8 (Minn. 1997) (emphasizing the injured party’s undisputed "expertise as an electrician” to deny liability for the “known and obvious danger” of live electrical wires); Baber, d at 496 (denying liability for "known and obvious conditions” because the injured ■ party undisputedly helped construfct the dange
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Scott B. Lindholm v. Carleton College, and third party v. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, third-party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristine Benton v. Tom Hedine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A reason to anticipate the harm may arise when the landowner has reason to expect that the [entrant] will proceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable man in his position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk.” (quotation omitted).
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Susanna D. Smith v. Wells Concrete Products Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the issue of an employer’s liability to the employee of an independent contractor.
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
through his own acts of negligence.” (emphasis added).
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
persons invited upon the premises.” (quotation omitted).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nadeau v. Melin, 260 Minn. 369, 375-76 , (stating that vicarious liability is the imposition of liability on one person for actionable conduct of another, based solely on relationship between the two persons).
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Presbrey v. James 781 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
For liability to attach, the company must retain control over the ‘operative detail’ of the work.”
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gilmore v. Walgreen Co. 759 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County 673 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
persons invited upon the premises.” (quoting Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , ).
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Louis v. Louis 636 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2001
Since 1972, we have consistently held that a landowner has a duty “‘to use reasonable care for the safety of all such persons invited upon the premises.’ ” (quoting Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 174 , ).
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gradjelick v. Hance 627 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cf. Sutherland v. Barton -8 (Minn.1997) (electrified, exposed buss bars constituted dangerous condition); -31 (Minn.1977) (icy exterior stairway a dangerous condition); Messner v. Red Owl Stores Inc., 238 Minn. 411, 415 , (banana peels on floor a dangerous condition); Hans
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rinn v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society 611 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000