Mueller v. Theis
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants David and Kenneth Mueller challenge summary judgment, contending the district court erred in dismissing their absolute liability claim under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1992) (dog owner’s liability) for insufficient causation. Appellant Farmers Insurance Group challenges the dismissal of its reimbursement and subrogation claims against the Muellers and respondents James and Curtis Theis. We conclude section 347.22 does not cover a dog’s nonaffirmative conduct or conduct that is not the direct and immediate cause of the injuries. We…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Grondahl v. BulluckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. GaravaliaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lake Superior Center Authority v. Hammel, Green & Abrahamson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Wallin v. Minnesota Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Anderson v. ChristophersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Anderson v. ChristophersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.