Homeowner Liability
Olmanson v. Le Sueur County, 673 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. App. 2004), review granted (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
As a statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2002), provides that no action may accrue more than ten years after substantial completion of the construction in question. But subdivision 1(c) of the statute exempts actions for negligent maintenance, operation, and inspection. Thus, an action for failure to warn of a dangerous condition on a property-owner’s land is not time-barred by subdivision 1(a).
Taney v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 624, 673 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
In a negligence action, the substantial remodeling of real property in the direct vicinity of an accident constitutes an improvement to that property and therefore the statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, runs from the date of that remodeling rather than the date of original construction of the real property.
In a negligence action, so long as the jury instructions are a fair and correct statement of the law, the district court does not err when it refuses to issue an instruction that the jury may not consider violations of the Uniform Building Code in determining negligence.
Bundy v. Holmquist, 669 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. App. 2003).
Premises liability is not limited to owners and possessors of real estate and those acting on their behalf but extends to any person who creates an unreasonable risk of harm that results in injury.
As a statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2002), provides that no action may accrue more than ten years after substantial completion of the construction in question. But subdivision 1(c) of the statute exempts actions for negligent maintenance, operation, and inspection. Thus, an action for failure to warn of a dangerous condition on a property-owner’s land is not time-barred by subdivision 1(a).
Taney v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 624, 673 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
In a negligence action, the substantial remodeling of real property in the direct vicinity of an accident constitutes an improvement to that property and therefore the statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, runs from the date of that remodeling rather than the date of original construction of the real property.
In a negligence action, so long as the jury instructions are a fair and correct statement of the law, the district court does not err when it refuses to issue an instruction that the jury may not consider violations of the Uniform Building Code in determining negligence.
Bundy v. Holmquist, 669 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. App. 2003).
Premises liability is not limited to owners and possessors of real estate and those acting on their behalf but extends to any person who creates an unreasonable risk of harm that results in injury.
Labels: homeowner liability
posted by Meshbesher & Spence at 5:08 PM
<< Home