DOMAGALA v. ROLLAND

No. A09-1945.

787 N.W.2d 662 (2010)

Bradley J. DOMAGALA, Appellant, v. Eric ROLLAND, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

August 31, 2010.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas J. Weidner , Kevin S. Sandstrom , Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P., Stillwater, MN, for appellant.

David E. Camarotto , Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondents.

Considered and decided by CONNOLLY, Presiding Judge; STONEBURNER, Judge; and SCHELLHAS, Judge.


OPINION

CONNOLLY, Judge.

On appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial, appellant argues that the district court erred when it (1) concluded there was no duty to warn appellant as a matter of law, and (2) improperly used "negative" jury instructions, which unduly emphasized respondents' case and confused the jury. Because the district court correctly concluded there was no special relationship giving rise to a duty to warn, we affirm...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases