TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Orin Olson v. Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation

Orin OLSON, Appellant, v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee

Orin Olson v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 456 F.2d 1299 (8th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 13, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1399
Judges
Matthes, Lay, Ross
Citations
456 F.2d 12991972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10797

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Orin Olson, was a block layer for Geo. W. Olson Construction Company, a general contractor, employed by the owner-defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Incorporated, to build a warehouse in Red Wing, Minnesota. During the course of construction plaintiff was seriously injured by the collapse of a concrete block wall. Plaintiff sued the owner and the architect of the building. Olson Construction Company could not be sued directly by reason of its exclusive liability under the Minnesota Workmen’s Compensation Act. A special jury verdict was returned finding the wall collapse was due to 100 percent negligence on the part of the general contractor. Thus judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. The trial court refused to set aside the verdict and this appeal followed.

On appeal the plaintiff urges that the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the defendant, Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., could be found liable under § 416 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965).

1

Both parties agree that Minnesota law governs the action.

*1300 The trial judge, the Honorable Philip Neville, in a well reasoned opinion held § 416 of the Restatement not applicable to the facts. Olson v. Kilstofte and Vo-sejpka, Inc., 327 F.Supp. 583 (D.Minn. 1971). We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Section 416 reads :

“One wlio employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize ns likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take sucli precautions, even though the employer has provided for sucli precautions in the contract or otherwise.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11977: 11980: 11981: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Olson v. Kilstofte & Vosejpka, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 583 (D. Minnesota 1971) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list