Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Disciplinary Action Against Romergreen1 sentence2012To prove a products liability claim based on a theory of negligence, appellants Glorvigen, Gartland, and Prokop’s estate “must prove (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) that the breach of the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury.” Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011). | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp.green1 sentence2012In Minnesota, suppliers of dangerous products have “a duty to warn end users of [the] dangerous product if it is reasonably foreseeable that an injury could occur in its use.” Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268, 274 (Minn.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. Mailandgreen2 sentences1991See Armstrong, 284 N.W.2d at 352 . 1991See Armstrong, 284 N.W.2d at 352 . | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Companygreen2 sentences1982This result is inconsistent with the underlying policy rationale supporting the strict products liability doctrine espoused in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967), and in Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321 , 188 N.W.2d 426 (1971). 1982This result is inconsistent with the underlying policy rationale supporting the strict products liability doctrine espoused in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967), and in Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321 , 188 N.W.2d 426 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Bilotta v. Kelley Co. Inc., 346 N.W.2d 616 , 623 n. 3 (Minn.1984). 2004Bilotta, 346 N.W.2d at 623 n. 3. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp.
green
1 sentence2000In Keene, the plaintiffs alleged both products-liability and common-law tort claims but the supreme court did not limit its holding to only the strict products-liability claim. 511 N.W.2d at 732 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Preston B. Purvis v. Consolidated Energy Products Company, a Division of Condec Corporation
green
2 sentences1988The court explained that a products liability claim in a commercial transaction is warranted only when the defect in the product is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary purchaser who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Id. 674 F.2d at 222 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment i). 1988The court explained that a products liability claim in a commercial transaction is warranted only when the defect in the product is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary purchaser who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Id. 674 F.2d at 222 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment i). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Seely v. White Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1988In citing the seminal case in this area, Seely v. White Motor Corp., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 , 403 P.2d 145 (1965), the court stated that a loss resulting from mere product ineffectiveness was properly subject to the law of contracts and commercial transactions, not strict products liability. 1988In citing the seminal case in this area, Seely v. White Motor Corp., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 , 403 P.2d 145 (1965), the court stated that a loss resulting from mere product ineffectiveness was properly subject to the law of contracts and commercial transactions, not strict products liability. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McCormack v. Hankscraft Company
green
2 sentences1982L.J. 5 , 17 (1965). 3 In approving the doctrine of strict products liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967), this court recognized that not only is the manufacturer in a better position than a consumer to bear economic loss and to redistribute it via the cost of his product, but he is also better able to appreciate and minimize the risk of injury through the production of safer goods. 1982L.J. 5 , 17 (1965). 3 In approving the doctrine of strict products liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 , 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967), this court recognized that not only is the manufacturer in a better position than a consumer to bear economic loss and to redistribute it via the cost of his product, but he is also better able to appreciate and minimize the risk of injury through the production of safer goods. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.