Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 33 N.W. 551.

35 citing documents.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Great Northern Railway Co. 219 N.W. 755 Minn. 1928
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Great Northern Railway Co. 219 N.W. 755 Minn. 1928
Co. 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 A. S. R. 832; Hendrickson v. Ash, 99 Minn. 417 , ; Peterson v. Merchants Elev.
Carr v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 167 N.W. 299 Minn. 1918
Carr v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 167 N.W. 299 Minn. 1918
Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co. 37 Minn. 153 , 33 N W. 551.
Beard v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 815 Minn. 1916
Beard v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. 158 N.W. 815 Minn. 1916
Barbo v. Bassett, 35 Minn. 485 , ; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co. 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Bell v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 128 N.W. 829 Minn. 1910
Bell v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 128 N.W. 829 Minn. 1910
As remarked by Judge Mitchell, in Woutilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 120 N.W. 360 Minn. 1909
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 120 N.W. 360 Minn. 1909
The leading opinion on the subject in this jurisdiction, which has been followed times without number by other courts, and the one most nearly controlling the present controversy, is that of Mitchell, J., in Wuotilla v. Duluth L. Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Davidson v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 119 N.W. 483 Minn. 1909
Davidson v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 119 N.W. 483 Minn. 1909
440; Wuotilla v. Duluth Dumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Atlas v. National Biscuit Co. 110 N.W. 250 Minn. 1907
Atlas v. National Biscuit Co. 110 N.W. 250 Minn. 1907
“The question is: Did he know or ought he, in the exercise of ordinary common sense and prudence, to have known the risks to which the condition of the in-strumentalities exposed him?” Mitchell, J., in Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Hendrickson v. Ash 109 N.W. 830 Minn. 1906
Hendrickson v. Ash 109 N.W. 830 Minn. 1906
Co., 32 Minn. 234 , ; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , 5 Am.
Campbell v. Railway Transfer Co. 104 N.W. 547 Minn. 1905
Campbell v. Railway Transfer Co. 104 N.W. 547 Minn. 1905
The question is, did he know, or ought he, in the exercise of ordinary common sense and -prudence, to have known, the risks to which the condition of the Instrumentalities exposed him.” Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153, 155 , ; Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co., 83 Minn. 25 , ; Sneda v. Libera, 65 Minn. 337 , ; Newhart v. St.
McGinty v. Waterman 101 N.W. 300 Minn. 1904
McGinty v. Waterman 101 N.W. 300 Minn. 1904
Citing Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , .
Jensen v. Regan 99 N.W. 1126 Minn. 1904
Jensen v. Regan 99 N.W. 1126 Minn. 1904
*327 The case is distinguished from Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , , and Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co., 83 Minn. 25 , .
Blom v. Yellowstone Park Ass'n 90 N.W. 397 Minn. 1902
Blom v. Yellowstone Park Ass'n 90 N.W. 397 Minn. 1902
Paul & D. R. Co., 27 Minn. 367 , ; Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , ; Berger v. St.
Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co. 85 N.W. 826 Minn. 1901
Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co. 85 N.W. 826 Minn. 1901
Wuotilla v. Duluth L. Co., 37 Minn. 153 , .
Stiller v. Bohn Manufacturing Co. 82 N.W. 981 Minn. 1900
Stiller v. Bohn Manufacturing Co. 82 N.W. 981 Minn. 1900
Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 .
Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co. 50 N.W. 244 Minn. 1891
Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co. 50 N.W. 244 Minn. 1891
147 ,) and Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.
Carroll v. Williston 46 N.W. 352 Minn. 1890
Carroll v. Williston 46 N.W. 352 Minn. 1890
There are exceptions to that rule, as will appear before I get through.” And further, in referring again to the rule, the court said: “That states one side of the case, that ordinarily ^ man is presumed to have his eyes open, and to see the dangers and keep out of them,” — and then proceeded to quote the language of this court in another case —Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.
Doyle v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. 43 N.W. 787 Minn. 1889
McDonald v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 43 N.W. 380 Minn. 1889
McDonald v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 43 N.W. 380 Minn. 1889
147 ;) Wuotilla v. Duluth Lumber Co., 37 Minn. 153 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.