Legal Opinion

Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 5, 2013No. A13-0104PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge.

Appellants argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their negligence claim against respondent on summary judgment based on the court’s application of the primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine. We agree, and we reverse and remand for trial.

FACTS

Appellants Kurt Eischen and JoAnn Eischen (Eischens) sued respondent Crystal Valley Cooperative, alleging that Crystal Valley’s negligence caused Kurt Eis-chen to suffer injuries on July 1, 2010, including pain, disfigurement, and disability, and caused JoAnn Eischen to suffer loss of companionship and society with her…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  2. Domagala v. RollandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
  3. Pacific Fire Insurance v. Kenny Boiler & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  4. Seidl v. Trollhaugen, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Canada by and Through Landy v. McCarthySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  2. Doe YZ v. Shattuck-St. Mary's SchoolDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API