Hohlt v. University of Minnesota
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent 1
*785DISSENT
2Dissent · AndersonAnderson, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The employee admitted that her injury occurred while in pursuit of personal activities, was due to a hazard that did not originate with her job; and was from a risk shared in common with' the public generally. Yet, the approach adopted by the court holds that employers are liable for garden variety slip-and-falls that may occur anywhere between the workplace and the employee’s chosen parking spot.
Minnesota’s workers’ compensation laws are “not designed to give compensation for every disability caused by accidental injury to the employee” and do “not make, the…
3Cases cited22 opinions
- Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Nelson v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Olson v. Trinity Lodge No. 282, A. F. A. M.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.