Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 17, 2005No. A03-1635, A04-205Published

1DissentHanson, Justice

I respectfully dissent. First, I disagree with the conclusion of the majority on the “personal duty” prong of Wicken v. Morris, 527 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Minn.1995). I would conclude that the evidence establishes as a matter of law that Paul Oster-man and Fred Zamberletti owed a personal duty to Korey Stringer. As foundation for that conclusion, I would hold that, under our precedent interpreting Minnesota’s law of “personal duty” and absent directions to the contrary from the legislature, the plaintiff need not prove that the coemployee was acting outside the course and scope of his employment, but…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hoang Minh Ly v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  2. Reed v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1988
  3. State v. BolsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  4. Grantham v. DenkeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1978
  5. State v. ChambersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API