Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 170.54 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 169.09, subd 5a]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79
cases, 1947–2010 · leading case: Boatwright v. Budak, 625 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
Boatwright v. Budak, 625 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “Alamo moved to limit its liability to $100,000, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (2000). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Iowa law, which has no limit on a rental-car company’s vicarious liability, applies.”
Milbank Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 332 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. 1983). “1982), we held that when an adult gave initial permission to a minor under Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1982), the adult was liable for claims arising out of negligent use of the vehicle by the minor, notwithstanding that at the time and place of the accident the minor was violating…”
Christensen v. Milbank Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 2003). “Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (2002). To effectuate this intent, automobile liability insurance policies contain an omnibus clause that creates liability insurance for permissive drivers.”
Jones v. Fleischhacker, 325 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1982). “We are called upon to determine whether a minor child, initially given permission by his parent to drive a motor vehicle owned by the parent, but who violated the parent’s express instructions, is deemed to be the *635 agent of the parent pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1980)…”
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Widness Ex Rel. Widness, 635 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. 2001). “Minn.Stat. § 170.54. The section in the Safety Responsibility Act requiring liability coverage for permissive drivers was repealed, but it is likely due to the fact that the same coverage was provided by the No-Fault Act's residual liability requirement.”
Hoffmann v. Wiltscheck, 411 N.W.2d 923 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “See Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1982) (a vehicle operator is “deemed the agent” of an owner who consents to the operator’s use of the vehicle).”
Pluntz v. Farmington Ford-Mercury, Inc., 470 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “Did the trial court err by imposing liability on appellant Farmington by operation of Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1988) (Safety Responsibility Act)? ANALYSIS Standard of review On appeal from summary judgment, the function of this court is to determine whether genuine issues of…”
Welle v. Prozinski, 258 N.W.2d 912 (Minn. 1977). “The trial court employed this particular provision of the statute in conjunction with § 170.54, 4 to hold that Askren, as owner of the Cougar automobile on the date of the accident, was vicariously liable for Welle’s injuries and subsequent damages.”
Safeco Ins. Companies v. Diaz, 385 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (1984) (emphasis added).”
Avis Rent-A-Car Sys. v. Vang, 123 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Minnesota 2000). “Plaintiffs, Avis Rent-a-Car (“Avis”) and Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”), and defendants move on cross-motions for summary judgment for a judicial declaration on the following issues: 1) whether Minn.Stat. § 170.54 applies to hold Avis vicariously liable for the…”
McClain v. Begley, 465 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1991). “4 (dealing with leased cars), and Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (the Safety Responsibility Act).”
Jacobsen v. Dailey, 36 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1949). “We there held that contributory negligence of a husband operating upon a public highway an automobile of which his wife was a co-owner and in which she was riding at the time of its collision with the truck of a third person was not imputable to the wife merely because of such…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.