superseding cause instruction in Minnesota

2024Fairness and Integrity The final requirement for relief based on plain error is for Glay to demonstrate that the claimed error affected the “fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Frazier, 811 N.W.2d at 626-27 (quotation omitted).

2024Pearson v. Henkemeyer, 503 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Minn. App. 1993), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993); see Hilligoss v. Cross Cos., 228 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Minn. 1975). 7 RCN argues that the district court did not err because Glay did not object to the superseding-cause instruction and thus Glay either forfeited this issue or we are limited to plain-error review, but this is incorrect.

2024The facts of this case support a superseding-cause instruction because “[a]s a general rule, a willful, malicious, or criminal act breaks the chain of causation and is a superseding cause.” Anderson v. Theisen, 43 N.W.2d 272, 274 (Minn. 1950).

2024The invited-error doctrine “precludes a party from asserting error on appeal which he invited or could have prevented in the [district] court.” In re Hibbing Taconite Mine & Stockpile Progression, 888 N.W.2d 336, 344 (Minn. App. 2016).

2024Pearson v. Henkemeyer, 503 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Minn. App. 1993), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993); see Hilligoss v. Cross Cos., 228 N.W.2d 585, 586 (Minn. 1975). 7 RCN argues that the district court did not err because Glay did not object to the superseding-cause instruction and thus Glay either forfeited this issue or we are limited to plain-error review, but this is incorrect.

2016See State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105, 113 (Minn. 2002).

1987Cf. Regan v. Stromberg, 285 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Minn.1979) (elements necessary for a superseding cause require an original negligent act).

1985Since Wersinger failed to prove at least three of the four elements required to establish a superseding cause defense, the trial court correctly rejected it. *832 The trial court was also correct in submitting this case to the jury on the theory of concurrent cause. “[W]here two or more tort-feasors, by concurrent acts of negligence, which, although disconnected, yet, in combination, inflict injury, all are liable.” Marcy v. Bjorklund, 291 Minn. 17, 21 , 189 N.W.2d 195, 197 (1971) (quoting Reader v. Ottis, 147 Minn. 335, 339 , 180 N.W. 117, 118 (1920)).

1985Since Wersinger failed to prove at least three of the four elements required to establish a superseding cause defense, the trial court correctly rejected it. *832 The trial court was also correct in submitting this case to the jury on the theory of concurrent cause. “[W]here two or more tort-feasors, by concurrent acts of negligence, which, although disconnected, yet, in combination, inflict injury, all are liable.” Marcy v. Bjorklund, 291 Minn. 17, 21 , 189 N.W.2d 195, 197 (1971) (quoting Reader v. Ottis, 147 Minn. 335, 339 , 180 N.W. 117, 118 (1920)).

1985Since Wersinger failed to prove at least three of the four elements required to establish a superseding cause defense, the trial court correctly rejected it. *832 The trial court was also correct in submitting this case to the jury on the theory of concurrent cause. “[W]here two or more tort-feasors, by concurrent acts of negligence, which, although disconnected, yet, in combination, inflict injury, all are liable.” Marcy v. Bjorklund, 291 Minn. 17, 21 , 189 N.W.2d 195, 197 (1971) (quoting Reader v. Ottis, 147 Minn. 335, 339 , 180 N.W. 117, 118 (1920)).

1985Since Wersinger failed to prove at least three of the four elements required to establish a superseding cause defense, the trial court correctly rejected it. *832 The trial court was also correct in submitting this case to the jury on the theory of concurrent cause. “[W]here two or more tort-feasors, by concurrent acts of negligence, which, although disconnected, yet, in combination, inflict injury, all are liable.” Marcy v. Bjorklund, 291 Minn. 17, 21 , 189 N.W.2d 195, 197 (1971) (quoting Reader v. Ottis, 147 Minn. 335, 339 , 180 N.W. 117, 118 (1920)).