Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co., 395 N.W.2d 922.

91 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., (noting that “whether there exists a duty is a legal issue for court resolution”).
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Alvin Glay, trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., … Minn. 2026
Co., ); see also Doe 169 v. Brandon, (stating that an injury was not foreseeable as a matter of law where “undisputed facts, considered together,” established that the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury was too attenuated).
Michelin Properties LLC, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co., -10 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that when a party fails to object to jury instructions until its motion for a new trial or request a jury instruction of its own, it forfeits its right to a jury trial of those questions), aff’d (stating that failure to object to a special-verdict form prior to submission to the jury constitutes a forfeiture of any objection which a party may have).
A20-1587 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., -10 (Minn. App. 1986), aff’d, d 922 (Minn. 1986).
Big-D Construction Midwest, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co ., -10 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that when party does not request jury instruction and neither jury instructions nor special - 9 verdict form include issue, appel late court may not consider it), aff’d, (concluding that party’s failure to object to jury instructions at trial waives right to appeal issue).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Co. , , 924 (Minn. 1986).
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
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 895 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc. 895 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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
Co., 2 To determine whether a duty to warn exists, the court goes to the event causing the damage and looks back to the alleged negligent act.
Ezell Moore, individually and as trustee for the heirs of Valerie M. VanMieghem, Decedent v. CenterPoint Energy Resources … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ezell Moore, individually and as trustee for the heirs of Valerie M. VanMieghem, Decedent v. CenterPoint Energy Resources … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., –25 (Minn. 1986), a negligence claim fails as a matter of law if the evidence would not reasonably support a finding that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Doe 169 v. Brandon 845 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 2014
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Domagala v. Rolland 805 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 796 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Co., -24 (Minn.1986) (failure to warn that safe operation of a hydraulic press required proper installation of a functional safety bar); Frey, d at 786 (failure to warn that a space heater should not be used in house traders or in other poorly insulated and tightly enclosed spaces); Lovejoy v. Minneapolis-Moli
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 an
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 664 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. 664 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marcon v. Kmart Corp. 573 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., (citing Bilotta, d at 621 ; Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., Frey, d at 786 ; Clark v. Rental Equip.
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bigay v. Garvey 562 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Smithe Machine Co., affd (verdict may be set aside only when evidence so clear that no room for difference among reasonable people).
Sutherland v. Barton 560 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sutherland v. Barton 560 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Shaughnessy 519 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Shaughnessy 519 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Williams v. Harris 518 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Drager Ex Rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Industries Corp. 495 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., quoted in Balder, d at 81 .
Carlson v. Mutual Service Insurance 494 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1993
Carlson v. Mutual Service Insurance 494 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1993
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992