Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bjerke v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 27, 2007No. A06-117Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Johnson’s provision of room, board, and a stable home environment to Bjerke for an entire summer gave rise to a special relationship that imposed on Johnson the duty to protect Bjerke from Bohl-man’s sexual abuse. Notwithstanding the disturbing events that underlie this litigation, I conclude that a special relationship did not exist between Johnson and Bjerke and that Johnson thus had no duty to protect Bjerke from Bohlman. I would therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implant Recipients v. Dow Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
  2. Myers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
  3. Blessing v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Artiglio v. Corning Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Cracraft v. City of St. Louis ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

25 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