Legal Opinion

Schneider Ex Rel. Schneider v. Erickson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 17, 2002No. C7-02-800PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HALBROOKS, Judge.

On appeal from summary judgment dismissing his negligence claim, appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) ruling that appellant primarily assumed the risk of being hit in the eye with a paintball when he played paintball without eye protection, and (2) granting summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain. Because we conclude that appellant primarily assumed the risk of being hit in the eye with a paintball by playing paintball without eye protection and that no genuine issues of material fact remain for trial, we affirm.

PACTS

On October 6,…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  3. Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
  4. Springrose v. WillmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  5. Armstrong v. MailandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
  3. Reimer v. City Of CrookstonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
  4. Peterson Ex Rel. Peterson v. DonahueCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  5. Renswick v. WenzelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

8 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