Herold v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
NEVILLE, District Judge.
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, 1 defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint. The court hereby grants the motion. This is a classic textbook case of superseding or intervening cause; or stated another way, a case where reasonable minds cannot differ and could not find defendant negligent for lack of a foreseeable event. 2 Were the jury to do so, the court would be compelled to set such finding aside.
Cloutier, White, Musech, Wright & Steele, Minneapolis, Minnesota, by John M. Steele, Esq. appeared for plaintiff; H. K. Bradford, Jr.,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lillie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Strobel v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Kroeger v. LeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Willard Green v. River Terminal Railway Co., Third Party Jerald E. Dawson, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Green v. River Terminal Railway Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1984
- Leef v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2002