Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Twist v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad, 39 N.W. 402.

45 citing documents.

Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 117 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1962
Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 117 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1962
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 A. S. R. 626, Mr. Justice Knutson, speaking for the court, said ( 258 Minn. 252 , 103 N. W. [2d] 383): “Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the location in *498 volved here is no more dangerous than any other part of the bay front of a port city such as Duluth.
Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
Slinker v. Wallner 103 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1960
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164, 167 , , 12 A. S. R. 626, 628, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, said: “* * * To the irrepressible spirit of curiosity and intermeddling of the average boy there is no limit to the objects which can be made attractive playthings.
Warning v. KANABEC COUNTY CO-OPERATIVE OIL ASSN. 42 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1950
Warning v. KANABEC COUNTY CO-OPERATIVE OIL ASSN. 42 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1950
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 A. S. R. 626; Borowski v. Sargent, 188 Minn. 102 , ; Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 200 Minn. 177 , ; McCarthy v. City of St.
Ewing Ex Rel. Ewing v. George Benz & Sons 28 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1947
Ewing Ex Rel. Ewing v. George Benz & Sons 28 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1947
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164, 167 , , 12 A. S. R. 626, it was said: “* * * To the irrepressible spirit of curiosity and intermeddling of the average boy there is no limit to the objects which can be made attractive playthings.
Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 281 N.W. 818 Minn. 1938
Middaugh v. Waseca Canning Co. 281 N.W. 818 Minn. 1938
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 A. S. R. 626; Powers v. C. M. & St.
Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 273 N.W. 665 Minn. 1937
Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. 273 N.W. 665 Minn. 1937
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164, 169 , , 12 A. S. R. 626, stated: “A child is bound to use such reasonable care as one of his age and mental capacity is capable of using; and his failure to do so is negligence.” This doctrine is applicable to children of the age of John.
Eckhardt v. Hanson 264 N.W. 776 Minn. 1936
Eckhardt v. Hanson 264 N.W. 776 Minn. 1936
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164, 169 , , 12 A. S. R. 626, Justice Mitchell stated: “But the authorities are all one way, and to the effect that even a child is bound to use such reasonable care as one of his age and mental capacity is capable of using; and his failure to do so is negligence.” In Decker v. Itasca Paper Co. 111 Minn.
Robbins v. New York Life Insurance 262 N.W. 210 Minn. 1935
Robbins v. New York Life Insurance 262 N.W. 210 Minn. 1935
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , 39 N.W.
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
Erickson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 889 Minn. 1925
P. R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 Am.
Brandenberg v. Equity Co-Operative Exchange 199 N.W. 570 Minn. 1924
Brandenberg v. Equity Co-Operative Exchange 199 N.W. 570 Minn. 1924
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 Am.
Hughes v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 178 N.W. 605 Minn. 1920
Hughes v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 178 N.W. 605 Minn. 1920
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 Am.
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
Dahl v. Valley Dredging Co. 145 N.W. 796 Minn. 1914
Peter R. Co. 39 Minn. 164 , , 12 Am.
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 104 N.W. 443 Minn. 1905
Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad 104 N.W. 443 Minn. 1905
Peter R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , , it was said that the rule should not be extended, it has been steadily adhered to in substance in all cases where the facts made it applicable.
Perry v. Tozer 90 Minn. 431 Minn. 1903
Perry v. Tozer 90 Minn. 431 Minn. 1903
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , ; Hepfel v. St.
Krumdick v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 95 N.W. 1122 Minn. 1903
Krumdick v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 95 N.W. 1122 Minn. 1903
Peter R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , ; Vogt v. Honstain, 85 Minn. 160 , ; Roe v. Winston, 86 Minn. 77, 80 , .
Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 90 N.W. 360 Minn. 1902
Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad 90 N.W. 360 Minn. 1902
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164, 168 , .
Fezler v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co. 88 N.W. 746 Minn. 1902
Fezler v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co. 88 N.W. 746 Minn. 1902
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , , where a boy of ten years and four months of age was injured by having his foot caught in a turntable.
Vogt v. Honstain 88 N.W. 443 Minn. 1902
Vogt v. Honstain 88 N.W. 443 Minn. 1902
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , .
Erickson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 84 N.W. 462 Minn. 1900
Erickson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 84 N.W. 462 Minn. 1900
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , , the court stated the necessity of limiting the doctrine in these words: “To the irrepressible spirit of curiosity and intermeddling of the *66 average boy, there is no limit to the objects which can be made attractive playthings.
Stendal v. Boyd 75 N.W. 735 Minn. 1898
Stendal v. Boyd 75 N.W. 735 Minn. 1898
P. R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , , the opinion was expressed that the doctrine of the turntable cases ought not to be extended.
Stendal v. Boyd 69 N.W. 899 Minn. 1897
Stendal v. Boyd 69 N.W. 899 Minn. 1897
P. R Co., 39 Minn. 164 , , we intimated quite clearly our views that the doctrine of the "turntable cases” ought not to be extended.
Hepfel v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co. 51 N.W. 1049 Minn. 1892
Haesley v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 48 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1891
Haesley v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad 48 N.W. 1023 Minn. 1891
Peter R. Co., 39 Minn. 164 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.