Legal Opinion
Spitzak v. Hylands, Ltd.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 25, 1993No. C3-92-2217PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant Patricia Spitzak filed suit on behalf of her son Anthony Spitzak against respondents The Hylands, Ltd. and Pemb-co. In her negligence claim, Spitzak contends respondents failed to provide adequate security to protect her son, a tenant, against foreseeable injury caused by third persons.
Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to protect because there was no “special relationship” between the parties and the criminal acts were unforeseeable. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Sarah B. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Ponticas v. K.M.S. InvestmentsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kopoian v. George W. Miller & Co., Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1995
- Cordes v. WoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Errico v. Southland Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- K.L. v. Riverside Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Nickelson v. Mall of America Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.