Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Character Of The Minnesota Tort System, Michael K. Steenson
The Character Of The Minnesota Tort System, Michael K. Steenson
Faculty Scholarship
The specific focus of this article is whether the Minnesota tort system is progressive. The answer to that question depends on a number of other questions. First, what are the components of the tort system? Second, what are the primary motivating principles of the system? Third, how is the term “progressive” defined for purposes of evaluating the system, and as applied to the tort system, what conclusions does it yield? Other questions might be whether the tort system in Minnesota is liberal, or conservative, or, perhaps, moderate, with the overriding question of whether those labels make any difference.
Radke V. County Of Freeborn: The Return Of The Public Duty Rule?, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg
Radke V. County Of Freeborn: The Return Of The Public Duty Rule?, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg
Faculty Scholarship
Article explores when Minnesota law provides a cause of action against government actors who are negligent in the performance of their duties. Part II of this Article traces the separate development of the common law public duty rule and the implied statutory cause of action analysis. Part III examines the Hoppe case, where the supreme court seemed to hold that the absence of an implied statutory cause of action precluded the existence of a common law cause of action. Part IV then assesses the Radke court’s effort to resolve the confusion flowing from Hoppe.
Engler V. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael K. Steenson
Engler V. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. And Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael K. Steenson
Faculty Scholarship
The rules governing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims differ significantly from state to state. The predominant rule is the bystander recovery rule, which permits recovery by persons who are not physically threatened by the defendant’s negligent conduct but who suffer emotional distress from witnessing injury to a third person. In bystander recovery jurisdictions, the required degree of proximity of the plaintiff to the accident scene, how the plaintiff hears about the accident, the plaintiff’s relationship to the person actually injured in the accident, and the proof required to establish severe emotional distress vary, sometimes significantly, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. …