Legal Opinion
K.R. v. Sanford
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 3, 2000No. C2-98-1377PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Justice.
In this appeal from summary judgment, we review the legal issue of whether a plaintiff, allegedly complicit in the illegal sale of alcohol, is barred from suit under the Civil Damages Act (CDA or Damages Act), 1 or whether such complicity is fault to be compared under the Comparative Fault Act (CFA). 2 We hold that the complicity of a plaintiff in the illegal sale of alcohol does not bar plaintiffs suit for damages under the CDA but, rather, such complicity is a fault to be compared and apportioned under the CFA.
Respondent K.R. filed suit under the Damages…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical CenterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Beck v. GroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Herrly v. MuzikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Pecinovsky v. AMCO Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Kissoondath v. United States Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.