Legal Opinion

Parr v. Hamnes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 21, 1975No. 44843 and 44869PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MacLaughlin, Justice.

The principal issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of plaintiff’s assumption of the risk. Because we conclude that it did, we reverse and order that judgment be entered for plaintiff.

Defendant Hamnes Farms, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation and defendant A. O. Hamnes is its president. At the time of the accident, plaintiff, a 67-year-old retired farmer, was employed on a part-time basis by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Defendant corporation…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Springrose v. WillmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  2. Coenen v. Buckman Building CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  3. Aldes v. St. Paul Ball Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  4. Schroeder v. Jesco, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  5. Sandstrom v. AAD Temple Building Assn. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Snilsberg v. Lake Washington ClubCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
  3. Beckman v. v. J. M. Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  4. Reimer v. City Of CrookstonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003
  5. Wegscheider v. Plastics, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

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

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

Powered by the Exa API