Legal Opinion
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 6, 1933No. 29,382PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIBELL, Justice.
Action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a customer in the store of the defendant, through its negligence. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, pursuant to which judgment was entered. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
There is no mystery in the law relative to the duty of a shopkeeper or merchant to his customers in his store. In Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347, 178 N. W. 586, the rule is stated by Judge Lees in this way:
“A shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Corrigan v. ElsingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Albachten v. Golden RuleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Ober v. Golden RuleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Poppleston v. Pantages Minneapolis Theatre Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Tierney v. Graves Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lindgren v. VogeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Anderson v. WinkleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- River v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1961
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. SnugginsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.