Legal Opinion · Dissent
Sutherland v. Barton
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 15, 1997No. C7-96-2018Published
1DissentFoley, Judge
I respectfully dissent. Since Schip v. Pabst Brewing Co., 64 Minn. 22, 66 N.W. 3, 4 (1896), it has been the consistent holding in Minnesota, as expressed in Schip, that
[t]here are many eases which hold that the owner of premises cannot, by employing a contractor, relieve himself from the continuing duty which he owes to the public, * * * [b]ut we can find no case which holds that the owner owes any such duty to the servant of the independent contractor.
This language was quoted with approval in a published opinion and followed by the court in Zimmer v. Carlton County Co-op. Power, 483 N.W.2d…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Conover v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Robert Olson and Jan Olson v. Pennzoil Company, Pennzoil Company, Defendant/third-Party v. Sun Well Service, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Schip v. Pabst Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Wells v. General Electric Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1992
- Zimmer v. Carlton County Co-Op Power Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992