Rude v. Rude

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Rude v. Rude

166 N.W.2d 719, 283 Minn. 524, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1196

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 28, 1969

Docket41785

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 166 N.W.2d 719 (Rude v. Rude) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rude v. Rude, 166 N.W.2d 719, 283 Minn. 524, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1196 (Mich. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment certified to this court pursuant to Rule 103.03 (i), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, as a case involving doubtful and important issues.

It appears that plaintiff-respondent sued for injuries sustained while trying to lead a pony owned by defendant-appellant back into an enclosure from which it had escaped. The trial court’s order certifying the matter to this court expressed the view that the law is indefinite as it relates to the “standard of care required by a plaintiff in the act of rescuing personal property.”

We have held that the function of the rule permitting certification of questions by the trial court should not be to submit general questions of whether the evidence does or does not establish issues which involve a *525 mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the jury, aided by the advice of the trial court as to the law of the case. The rule should not be used to submit hypothetical or speculative questions or to secure an advisory opinion. State v. Moller, 276 Minn. 185, 149 N. W. (2d) 274; 5 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, § 1026. We fail to see how the question certified can be considered as either important or doubtful. The cases cited in 13B Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7025, deal with the subject of negligence as it relates to an attempt to save life or property. Among them is Henjum v. Bok, 261 Minn. 74, 77, 110 N. W. (2d) 461, 463, which states:

“The so-called rescue doctrine does not affect the ordinary standard of care. The doctrine merely indicates that, where an attempt is being made to save human life or property, a reasonably prudent person will take greater risks than might ordinarily be justified. Similarly, the emergency rule is only an application of the reasonable man standard of care to a particular situation.”

Since the standard of care required to be exercised by one in the act of rescuing property has already been fully stated, there is nothing for this court to consider or review. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the case is remanded to the district court.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment certified to this court pursuant to Rule 103.03 (i), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, as a case involving doubtful and important issues.

It appears that plaintiff-respondent sued for injuries sustained while trying to lead a pony owned by defendant-appellant back into an enclosure from which it had escaped. The trial court’s order certifying the matter to this court expressed the view that the law is indefinite as it relates to the “standard of care required by a plaintiff in the act of rescuing personal property.”

We have held that the function of the rule permitting certification of questions by the trial court should not be to submit general questions of whether the evidence does or does not establish issues which involve a *525 mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the jury, aided by the advice of the trial court as to the law of the case. The rule should not be used to submit hypothetical or speculative questions or to secure an advisory opinion. State v. Moller, 276 Minn. 185, 149 N. W. (2d) 274; 5 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, § 1026. We fail to see how the question certified can be considered as either important or doubtful. The cases cited in 13B Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 7025, deal with the subject of negligence as it relates to an attempt to save life or property. Among them is Henjum v. Bok, 261 Minn. 74, 77, 110 N. W. (2d) 461, 463, which states:

“The so-called rescue doctrine does not affect the ordinary standard of care. The doctrine merely indicates that, where an attempt is being made to save human life or property, a reasonably prudent person will take greater risks than might ordinarily be justified. Similarly, the emergency rule is only an application of the reasonable man standard of care to a particular situation.”

Since the standard of care required to be exercised by one in the act of rescuing property has already been fully stated, there is nothing for this court to consider or review. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the case is remanded to the district court.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.W.2d 719, 283 Minn. 524, 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rude-v-rude-minn-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack