Law Commons^™

The Most Substantial Factor: Analysis Of Ambiguous Causation--Staub As Trustee Of Weeks V. Myrtle Lake Resort, Llc, 964 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. 2021), Hailey Oestreicher

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defaming The President, Douglas B. Mckechnie

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Damages For Tortious Harm To Pets: Minnesota's Market Value Approach Severely Undercompensates Plaintiffs, Morgan Phelps

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Liability For Sexual Misconduct, Mike K. Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind: The Third Restatement, Duty, And Foreseeability, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (the “Third Restatement”) was adopted by the American Law Institute in 2010. The approach taken by the Third Restatement to negligence law excludes foreseeability from the duty determination and places it squarely as a relevant factor in the breach issue; it adopts the “but-for” standard for causation; and rejects proximate cause terminology, instead utilizing a scope of liability approach in which the key question is whether the harms that occurred were of the same general type that made the actor’s conduct tortious. Removal of foreseeability from the duty determination …

Mypillow Lands Hard In Judge Wright’S Court, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Lindell, Smartmatic sued Michael Lindell and MyPillow, Inc. in Minnesota federal district court, alleging defamation and violation of Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on Lindell’s claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, including that Smartmatic voting machines were rigged. This post focuses on Smartmatic’s defamation claim against Lindell and MyPillow.

Patient Decision Aids Improve Patient Safety And Reduce Medical Liability Risk, Thaddeus Pope

Faculty Scholarship

Tort-based doctrines of informed consent have utterly failed to assure that patients understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the healthcare they receive. Fifty years of experience with the doctrine of informed consent have shown it to be an abject catastrophe. Most patients lack an even minimal understanding of their treatment options. But there is hope. Substantial evidence shows that patient decision aids (PDAs) and shared decision making can bridge the gap between the theory and practice of informed consent. These evidence-based educational tools empower patients to make decisions with significantly more knowledge and less decisional conflict than clinician-patient discussions …

Designing Children: Tort Liability For Medical Providers In The Era Of Crispr/Cas-9 Geneticc Editing, Sarah Roa

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torts: Sacrificing Individual Recovery For Media Protection—Larson V. Gannett Co., 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020), Rachel Lantz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Official, Figures, And Controversies In Minnesota Defamation Law, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Minnesota, the plaintiff in a common law defamation claim is entitled to recover presumed damages in libel and slander per se cases. Those rules change when the First Amendment is injected into defamation cases when the plaintiff is a public official or figure or is a private person involved in a public controversy. A plaintiff who is a public official or figure must prove not only the elements of the common law defamation claim, but also that the defamatory communication was a false statement of fact and prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was made with actual …

Ai Entities As Ai Agents: Artificial Intelligence Liability And The Ai Respondeat Superior Analogy, Anat Lior

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torts: Just Walk Away: How An Overbroad Foreseeability Of Harm Standard Could Kill “Curbside Consultations” — Warren V. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019), Erika Miller

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can An Improved Disclosure Mechanism Moderate Algorithm-Based Software Patentability In The Public Interest?, Vinicius Sala

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Ventura V. Kyle And American Sniper; The Anatomy Of A Public Figure’S Lawsuit, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper, detailed his exploits as a prolific Navy SEAL sniper. In a book subchapter Kyle detailed an encounter with a "Mr. Scruff Face" in a San Diego Bar. The book states that Ventura made certain statements that were demeaning of the United States and the Navy SEALS. Scruff Face was subsequently identified by Chris Kyle as Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota. Ventura sued Chris Kyle for defamation, appropriation, and unjust enrichment. Relying on trial court documents, briefs, and the opinions in the case, this article probes those theories of recovery with an emphasis on the …

Fenrich V. The Blake School And Minnesota Tort Law: A Road Map Through Special Relationships, Misfeasance/Nonfeasance, And Duty, Mike K. Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Foundation: Washington's Lack Of Homeowner Rights, Brendan Williams

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Duty, Foreseeability, And Montemayor V. Sebright Products, Inc., Mike Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Torts: No Statutory Interpretation Required—Guzick V. Kimball, Marcus Jardine

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Staab Saga: The Nonparty, Joint And Several Liability, And Loss Reallocation In The Minnesota Comparative Fault Act, Mike Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Mike Steenson

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

Torts Law: Blurred Elements: The New Nebulous Nature Of Foreseeability, The Confounding Quality Of Misfeasance, And The Minnesota Supreme Court's Decision—Doe 169 V. Brandon, Cara Mcdonald

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taxing Anxiety, Morgan Holcomb

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I argue for a statutory change to the disparity in the taxation of damages. I submit that nearly all damages, including damages received on account of physical injury, ought to be taxable, and that juries must be apprised of tax consequences so that they can make proper adjustments to take account of these tax consequences. I will refer to this as the full inclusion proposal with jury awareness - for ease, the full inclusion proposal.

My proposed change is the more sound solution for several reasons. Full inclusion creates certainty and avoids wasteful tax gamesmanship. Furthermore, assuming …

The Domagala Dilemma-Domagala V. Rolland, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Domagala v. Rolland, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review in a personal injury case that was dominated by duty and special relationship issues, even though the parties agreed that there was no special relationship between them. The case, straddling the misfeasance/nonfeasance line, was complicated by the defense theory (that the lack of a special relationship meant that the defendant owed no duty to protect or warn the plaintiff), and the plaintiff’s theory (that the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff because he acted affirmatively, even if the risk to the plaintiff did not become apparent …

Swanson V. Brewster: Are The Minnesota Courts Reforming The Tort System?, Stephen P. Laitinen, Hilary J. Loynes

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

Minnesota Negligence Law And The Restatement (Third) Of Torts: Liability For Physical And Emotional Harms, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesota, who are seeking to understand how the Third Restatement’s approach to negligence law fits with Minnesota negligence law. The first Part of the article examines the approach of the Third Restatement. Because decisions in other states applying the Third Restatement will be important for courts in Minnesota and elsewhere in deciding whether to apply the Third Restatement, the second Part examines early reports on the Third Restatement in Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Delaware.

Proximate Cause In Civil Damages, Michael E. Steenson

Journal of Law and Practice

No abstract provided.

My Lawyer Told Me To Say I'M Sorry: Lawyers, Doctors, And Medical Apologies, Peter B. Knapp

Faculty Scholarship

The role of apologies in litigation has received a great deal of attention in the last ten years. This is particularly true of “medical apologies,” those expressions of regret and, in some cases, admissions of responsibility made by health care professionals. Two recent trends have prompted examination of medical apologies. First, widely reported empirical studies suggest that patients and their families may be less likely to bring malpractice lawsuits following adverse outcomes if treating physicians have apologized. Second, over about the past ten years, two-thirds of the states have adopted statutes that exclude these apologies from evidence if there is …

The Legacy Of The 9/11 Fund And The Minnesota I-35w Bridge-Collapse Fund: Creating A Template For Compensating Victims Of Future Mass-Tort Catastrophes, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this article is to analyze and compare the 9/11 Fund and the Minnesota bridge-collapse compensation scheme for purposes of illustrating the necessary components of any future compensation schemes legislatures consider adopting in cases involving other catastrophes. This article first sets out the primary issues that must be addressed when considering a compensation scheme. It then examines the choices made in the 9/11 Fund and Minnesota’s bridge-collapse compensation scheme. A brief comparison of the two compensation schemes follows to provide the framework for considering the components of future compensation schemes.

Peterson V. Balach, Obvious Dangers, And The Duty Of Possessors Of Land In Minnesota, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The purpose of this article is to analyze Minnesota landowners law, with particular emphasis on the impact of Peterson v. Balach. Following a short history of Minnesota law governing possessors’ duties, including a discussion of pre-Peterson v. Balach and Adee v. Evanson cases, the article considers the question of why the courts, post-Peterson v. Balach/Adee v. Evanson, regularly return to pre-Peterson forms to resolve possessor liability issues, particularly in cases involving obvious dangers, and whether the phenomenon is a result of a wrong turn or is a reflection of a conscious policy choice intended to effectively repudiate the progressive position …

Still Crazy After All These Years: Landlords And Tenants And The Law Of Torts, Lawrence R. Mcdonough

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.