Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lind v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 353.

21 citing documents.

Jill Marie Kalisch, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Cheryl Orcutt, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
‘the plaintiff must prove the reasonable certainty of such expenses by a fair preponderance of the evidence .’” Lind v. Slowinski , (quoting Kwapien v. Starr , ), (citation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Feb.
Steven Brown, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To establish damages for future medical care, a plaintiff must (1) demonstrate that “future damages in the form of future medical treatments will be required” and (2) establish the amount of the future medical expenses “by expert testimony.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
Herbert B. Fick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Lind v. Slowinski , review denied (Minn. Feb.
Misty Jensen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
359 (Minn. App. 1990) (affirming exclusion of expert evidence in part because “it would have put before the jury the fact that [plaintiff] was not wearing a seat belt ” while sitting on lap of front -seat passenger), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aaron Larson v. BNSF Railway Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Willis v. Indiana Harbor Steamship Co. 790 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(vacating future damages award based on vague testimony that plaintiff will need “sporadic” care or “medical attention once in a while”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Burck v. Pederson 704 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Burck v. Pederson 704 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The appellants cite Lind v. Slowinski review denied (Minn. Feb.
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marsden v. Crawford 589 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding that evidence of use of child restraint system is not admissible to defend wrongful death claim); (holding that seat belt evidence not admissible in negligence litigation), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
Olson v. Ford Motor Co. 558 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1997
28, 1995), (“The specific intent of the legislature was to remove from jury consideration the use or nonuse of seat belts.”), pet.
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Anker v. Little 541 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(“The specific intent of the legislature was to remove from jury consideration the use or nonuse of seat belts.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Krutsch v. Walter H. Collin GmBh Verfahrenstechnik Und Maschinenfabric 495 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krutsch v. Walter H. Collin GmBh Verfahrenstechnik Und Maschinenfabric 495 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Swelbar v. Lahti 473 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1991