Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Slinker v. Wallner

Slinker v. Wallner

103 N.W.2d 377, 258 Minn. 243, 1960 Minn. LEXIS 605
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJune 10, 1960
Docket37,919
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 103 N.W.2d 377 (Slinker v. Wallner) 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
Slinker v. Wallner, 103 N.W.2d 377, 258 Minn. 243, 1960 Minn. LEXIS 605 (Mich. 1960).

Opinion

Knutson, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a verdict directed by the trial court on defendants’ motion at the close of plaintiff’s case. The only question presented here is whether the evidence was insufficient to present a jury issue on liability.

The action was brought to recover for the wrongful death of Daryle *244 AMstrand, age 6, by drowning when he fell into the bay at Duluth.

It is alleged in the complaint that defendants James Oreck, Ruth Oreck, and Duluth Teachers Retirement Fund Association are the owners of the premises from which Daryle fell into the bay. The answer is a general denial.

Located upon the premises involved is the Flame restaurant. The rear end of the building in which this business is operated faces the bay. Running the entire width of the rear of the building is a dock rising some 4 to 6 feet out of the water. Facilities are available at the top of this dock for fastening boats moored to the dock. To the right of the building, looking from the rear to the front, is a parking area used by patrons of the restaurant. The parking area is protected from the water by a board fence. The area behind the building is protected by an iron-pipe type of fence. The area between the rear of the building and the water’s edge is about 10 or 12 feet in width. 1 Separating the area behind the building from the parking lot is a solid concrete wall about 8 or 10 feet high running from the end of the building to the water’s edge. This wall is about 2 feet thick. There are no facilities for scaling the wall on the parking-area side of the wall; on the other side, climbing irons are embedded in the wall, permitting access to the top thereof. The general appearance of the area is shown by the following photograph.

*245

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

Related

Senogles v. Carlson
902 N.W.2d 38 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2017)
Croaker Ex Rel. Croaker v. MacKenhausen
592 N.W.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1999)
Henry v. State
406 N.W.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Hage v. Stade
304 N.W.2d 283 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Cargill, Incorporated, a Foreign Corporation v. Francis Zimmer, Special Administrator of the Estate of Francis Zimmer, Jr., Deceased
374 F.2d 924 (Eighth Circuit, 1967)
Heider v. Michigan Sugar Co.
134 N.W.2d 637 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1966)
Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.
117 N.W.2d 304 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.W.2d 377, 258 Minn. 243, 1960 Minn. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slinker-v-wallner-minn-1960.