Plaintiff Strelow was in attendance at the beer tent of a local festival when in her attempt to catch a Frisbee that was thrown in the crowd, Strelow tripped over what she perceived to be electrical cords on the ground. Strelow failed to prove that the Defendant caused the cords to be placed where she fell, or knew or should have known about the existence of the cords. The Court held that a Defendant owes no duty as a matter of law to warn or protect Plaintiff from an injury when the evidence is … [Read more...]

Plaintiff Pauli fell when she stepped out of her friend’s residence resulting in a compound fracture to her ankle. Defendant homeowners had an unusual height for their first step, which was protected by the statute of repose but they also failed to maintain proper lighting at the exit. The Statute of Repose, Wis. Stat. § 893.89, does not protect Defendants from liability if Plaintiff's damages resulted from negligent maintenance of the home, which in this case relates to the alleged failure to … [Read more...]

Plaintiff sustained multiple bite wounds after intervening in a dog fight between her dog Moosie and the neighbors pit bull Princess. Plaintiff claimed the Emergency Doctrine, which relieves a person from liability, in this instance for contributory negligence, for his or her own action or inaction when faced with an emergency that his or her conduct did not help to create. The court determined that her decision to wait until her dog could no longer yelp indicated that she had time to … [Read more...]

The court held that: (1) To state a claim under Title I of the ADA, the plaintiff must allege that he/she can perform the essential functions of his/her job with or without reasonable accommodation to be a “qualified individual” as defined under the ADA; and (2) A benefit plan that is private and not offered to the public in general, but rather limited to employees, is not a “public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA. Seese v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 14-cv-03286 (D. Minn. … [Read more...]

In Nathanson et al. v. Spring Lake Park Panther Youth Football Association et al., the court determined that because the Football Association has games scheduled in advance suggests that there is some sort of arrangement with the City allowing access and control to the fields and, therefore, it is plausible that the Football Association satisfies the legal definition of a place of public accommodation and, for that reason, the court denied Defendants Motion to Dismiss and refused to consider … [Read more...]

Common Enterprise defense in an employee’s third party action under Minn Stat. Sec. 176.061. When analyzing the “same or similar hazards” McCourtie factor to determine whether the employer and a third party were engaged in a common enterprise, a court must look at the general risks employees are exposed to and not solely the exact risk that caused the injury at issue. Schirmers v. Cnty. of Anoka, No. A14-2019 (Minn. Ct. App. July 20, 2015) (unpublished) … [Read more...]

An employer may, in certain circumstances, raise the defenses of waiver and laches when a plaintiff brings a claim under § 515 of ERISA. Midwest Constr. & Distribution Indus. Benefit Trust v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., No. 0:14-CV-00853-ADM-HB (D. Minn. July 14, 2015). … [Read more...]

Minnesota courts typically treat appraisal awards as arbitration awards, and a party cannot collect pre-award interest when their contract specifies that the party cannot receive payment on a loss until after the appraisal panel issues an award. Hous. Redevelopment Auth. of Redwood Falls v. Hous. Auth. Prop. Ins., No. 0:14-CV-04741-PAM-HB (D. Minn. July 14, 2015). … [Read more...]

Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 4 requires intervenors to appear at conferences and hearings if the intervenor’s claim is at issue. If the intervenor fails to appear then the compensation judge must deny its claim, unless none of the parties object to the intervenor’s motion to intervene or they stipulate to the validity of the intervenor’s claim. Sumner v. Lupient Infiniti, A14-0726 (Minn. July 8, 2015). … [Read more...]

INTENTIONAL-INJURY EXCEPTION TO THE MINNESOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT EXCLUSIVE-REMEDY PROVISION. The court emphasized that the intentional-injury exception to the exclusive-remedy rule of the workers’ compensation act is a narrow exception that requires the employer’s conscious and deliberate intent to inflict injury upon the employee. An employer’s intent to injure may not be inferred from an employer’s negligent act or from an employer’s decision to engage in an act that the employer knows, … [Read more...]