Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Watson-Forsberg Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 2, 1991No. C9-90-2637PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge.

Plaintiff Thomas Holmes commenced an action against respondent Watson-Fors-berg Company, alleging negligent inspection of a construction site, failure to warn of unsafe conditions, and failure to remove snow and ice from the roof on which Holmes was working. Watson-Forsberg brought a third-party action against appellant Pro-Tech Roof Systems, Inc. seeking contribution and indemnification for negligence. Watson-Forsberg moved for summary judgment on its right to contractual indemnification from Pro-Tech. This motion was granted. Holmes’ claim against Watson-Forsberg was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  4. Christy v. Menasha CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  5. Johnson v. McGough Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Seifert v. Regents of University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
  2. Holmes v. Watson-Forsberg Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  3. D.W. Hutt Consultants, Inc. v. Construction Maintenance Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  4. Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API