Minnesota Premises Liability: Reasonable Care

The Jury Instruction Guide (JIG 85.25) states that premises liability can be expanded to include these relevant factors:

• The following factors can be applied in determining whether reasonable care was exercised by the possessor or entrant:
  • the circumstances under which the invitee enters the land
  • the foreseeability or possibility of harm
  • duty to inspect, repair, or warn
  • reasonableness of inspection or repair
  • opportunity of repair correction Peterson v. Balach, 199 N.W.2d 639,647 (Minn. 1972)
• A homeowner has a duty to warn invitees of obvious or known dangers if the homeowner can anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm. Betzold v. Sherwin, 404 N.W. 2d 286, 289 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). Reason to anticipate harm may occur if the homeowner has reason to expect that the invitee will encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable person in the homeowner’s position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk. Sutherland v. Barton, 570 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn. 1997).

Minnesota Premises Liability Lawyer

Our Minnesota Premises Liability Lawyers are gifted, persuasive litigators with years of experience litigating premises liability cases, including a recent settlement for $350,000. The settlement has been put into an annuity with a projected value of $850,000. Our partners have been named Minnesota Super Lawyers many times by their peers. Call 612-362-0000 or submit our free consultation form.