Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 616.

78 citing documents.

SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A claim based on a design defect challenges “a consciously chosen design” in which “[t]he manufacturer has deliberately added or omitted the challenged component.” see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability 7 § 2(b) (1998) (explaining a design defect exists “when the foreseeable risks of harm .
Ashen S. Diehl, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A manufacturer must exercise a degree of care in its “plan or design so as to avoid any unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who is likely to be exposed to the danger when the product is used in the manner for which the product was intended, as well as an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable use.” Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Montemayor v. Sebright Products, Inc. 898 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
& Tool Works, (failure to warn); (design defect); (describing the issue of duty as a “threshold question” to be determined before liability is considered).
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
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp. 816 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2012
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC. 785 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The district court, stated that “Minnesota courts have generally adopted the position that where there is a strict liability claim that the product has been designed in an inherently dangerous condition, the relationship to a warranty of merchantability is so close that the claims merge.” In Bilotta , the supreme court
Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
623 n. 3 (Minn.1984) (requiring proof of a product’s defective condition in a products liability case utilizing the theory of strict liability).
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc. 681 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
13, 1991) ( for proposition that strict liability, negligence, and implied warranty merge into a single product-liability theory); Cont’l Ins.
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
13, 1991) ( for proposition that strict liability, negligence, and implied warranty merge into a single product-liability theory); Cont'l Ins.
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
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
Patton v. Newmar Corp. 538 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1995
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., , 623 n. 3 (Minn.1984); Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., 326 * Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 329
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
623 n. 3 (Minn.1984); Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg.
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Harmon Contract Glazing, Inc. v. Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 493 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. 473 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. 473 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co. 465 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Omnetics, Inc. v. Radiant Technology Corp. 440 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*182 Appellant claims the general rule articulated in Busch has been changed by subsequent supreme court decisions in Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., and Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., opinion after remand, pet.
Forster v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 437 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1989
Forster v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 437 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1989
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Western Surety & Casualty Co. v. General Electric Co. 433 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., , 623 n. 3 (Minn.1984) (citation omitted).
Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Keenan v. Hydra-Mac, Inc. 422 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(OSHA violations “were reasonably foreseeable” and therefore not a superseding cause relieving a manufacturer of its duty to produce a safe product).
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 407 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
5 Later, we reaffirmed our Holm holding that we had adopted the reasonable care balancing test.
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krein v. Raudabough 406 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shipka v. Helvig 405 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., the supreme court used similar language in announcing new jury instructions, stating that it would apply to “this case and to all cases decided hereafter.” Id.
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gross on Behalf of Gross v. Running 403 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gross on Behalf of Gross v. Running 403 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Jonathan v. Kvaal 403 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Finally, resolution of all issues against the manufacturer, the property owner and the injured party will “depend largely on *263 the scope of evidence admitted by the trial court and on the jury instructions given under each theory.” Bilotta v. Kelley Company, Inc.
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mervin v. Magney Construction Co. 399 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1987