Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Disability And Income Loss Benefits Under The Minnesota No-Fault Act, Michael K. Steenson Jan 1998

Disability And Income Loss Benefits Under The Minnesota No-Fault Act, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act was intended to ensure the “prompt payment of specific basic economic loss benefits to victims of automobile accidents without regard to whose fault caused the accident,” to prevent overcompensation of less seriously injured people by the interposition of tort thresholds, and to encourage appropriate medical and rehabilitation treatment by assuring prompt payment for that treatment. It seems clear that at least some of the initial promise of the Act has not been fulfilled. Payment of basic economic loss benefits, which the legislature intended to be paid promptly, has become bogged down in a quagmire …


No-Fault In A Fault Context: Tort Actions And Section 65b.51 Of The Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Michael K. Steenson Jan 1976

No-Fault In A Fault Context: Tort Actions And Section 65b.51 Of The Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

The passage of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act has created new problems for the Minnesota lawyer. Some of the most pressing problems concern the effect of the Act on tort actions. This article analyzes the provisions of the No-Fault Act dealing with limitations on tort recovery and suggests solutions to come of the many interpretive problems created by the Act.


Hudson V. Rainville [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter May 1956

Hudson V. Rainville [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

In a pedestrian's personal injury action, the trial court properly submitted the issue of an automobile driver's negligence to the jury where the evidence presented a question of fact as to that issue.


Hilyar V. Union Ice Co., Jesse W. Carter Jul 1955

Hilyar V. Union Ice Co., Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Nonsuit as to driver was improper in injured minor's personal injury action because evidence was sufficient on negligence issue to permit submission to jury but nonsuit was proper as to corporation because evidence of agency was insufficient.


Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Aug 1952

Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur as well as the conflicting presumption of due care that arose if defendant driver was truly unable to recall the cause of the accident.


Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Jul 1952

Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

The doctrine of last clear chance rarely applied in cases involving high speed collisions between vehicles because it was extremely difficult to determine which party, if any, had a meaningful last clear chance to avoid an accident.


Selinsky V. Olsen, Jesse W. Carter Nov 1951

Selinsky V. Olsen, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

The refusal of the trial court to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine resulted in the granting of a new trial to plaintiff in a personal injury action resulting from a collision.