Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: April 2, 2010 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of April 2, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
2.
1. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY UNDER MINN. STAT. § 604.02
-
A party found 50% at fault for injuries to another is not joint and severally liable for the whole award under Minn. Stat. § 604.02 subd. 1.
Plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against a property owner for injuries sustained in a fall from her wheelchair. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault to the property owner and 50% to the plaintiff’s husband who was pushing her wheelchair when she fell, but was not a party to the lawsuit. The district court held that because the husband was not a party to the lawsuit, Minn. Stat. § 604.02 did not apply. Therefore, the property owner was responsible for 100% of the damage award.
The property owner appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that despite the husband’s non-party tortfeasor status, Minn. Stat. § 604.02 applied and the property owner was only responsible for 50% of the damage award. The Court noted that among multiple tortfeasors, several liability is the general rule and requires contribution to the damage award in proportion to the percentage of fault attributed to each tortfeasor. The exception, making a party jointly and severally liable for the whole award if their fault is greater than 50%, did not apply because the property owner was exactly 50% at fault.
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, A09-1335 (Minn. Ct. App. 3/30/10).
2. SUMMARY JUDGMENT – DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
-
A grant of summary judgment on the merits of the case mandates dismissal of the claims with prejudice.
In a lawsuit concerning defective construction and design of new homes, the defendant developer brought a third-party professional negligence claim against the design firm, seeking contribution for claims brought by the plaintiff homeowner association. The district court granted the design firm’s motion for summary judgment on the professional negligence claim but then dismissed the developer’s third-party claims without prejudice. The design firm appealed the court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice and the developer appealed the grant of summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment after finding that the developer’s expert did not properly establish the standard of care, but reversed the district court as to the dismissal without prejudice. The Court held that the grant of summary judgment constituted a determination on the merits of the developer’s claims and they were to be dismissed with prejudice. The Court noted that aside from the rare case of procedural oddities, a grant of summary judgment mandates an entry of judgment for the moving party.
Pond Hollow Homeowners Ass’n v. The Ryland Group, Inc., A09-1172 (Minn. Ct. App. 3/30/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, P. Semrow, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |