Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Whiteford Ex Rel. Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 582 N.W.2d 916.

41 citing documents.

Doe A.S., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Jenny Pachicano, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 916, 918 (Minn. 1998).
Meagan Abel, Minn. 2020
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., ).
SRRT Properties, LP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Ashen S. Diehl, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., (footnote omitted).
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Warren v. Dinter 926 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2019
Carney Lien, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In close cases, the question of f oreseeability is for the jury.” Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
Fenrich v. Blake Sch. 920 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2018
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., d 916, 918 (Minn. 1998)).
Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Followed Senogles v. Carlson 902 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2017
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fenrich v. Blake School 901 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
); see also Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., -33 (Minn. 2017) (analyzing foreseeability in context of product-liability case).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., (design defect).
Nereus Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., d/b/a Bright Technologies, and third party v. VZ Hogs, LLP, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nereus Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc., d/b/a Bright Technologies, and third party v. VZ Hogs, LLP, Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School … 873 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In determining whether a danger is foreseeable, courts look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.” Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kellogg v. Finnegan 823 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., ).
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Foss v. Kincade 766 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2009
Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Foss v. Kincade 746 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co., (stating that improper use of a product “need not be anticipated by the manufacturer” (emphasis added)); see also Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., (holding that risk of collision between toboggan and parked snowmobile “was not one which Yamaha was required to anticipate or protect against” (emphasis added)); cf. Peterson v. Richfield Plaza, Inc., 252 Minn. 215, 222 , (finding foreseeability but acknowledging that cases
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 742 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
When considering whether a risk is foreseeable, “courts look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.”
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Stuedemann v. Nose 713 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“In determining whether a danger is foreseeable, courts look at whether the specific danger was objectively reasonable to expect, not simply whether it was within the realm of any conceivable possibility.”
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
Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.
Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kuhl v. Heinen 672 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Whiteford by Whiteford v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A.