Legal Opinion
Weber Ex Rel. Sanft v. Goetzke
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 23, 1985No. C9-84-1480PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Bernard and Sharon Weber appeal the trial court’s finding that they and other members of their family are liable for injuries to Charles Weber, their nephew, based on the theory of joint venture and joint enterprise liability. They argue that the family activities, as a matter of law, do not rise to the level of either joint venture or joint enterprise. We reverse.
FACTS
Charles Weber, a minor, was injured when a paint can which Raymond Goetzke had placed in a fire pit exploded, splattering him with hot paint. His medical expenses were stipulated to be $9,631.18. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- First National Bank of St. Paul v. RamierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Delgado v. LohmarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Olson v. IscheSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Connolly v. Nicollet HotelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Bergstedt, Wahlberg, Berquist Associates, Inc. v. RothchildSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Dang v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Hansen v. St. Paul Metro Treatment Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Fu v. OwensCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- Ryba v. LaLancetteDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.