You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Opay v. Howard Lake Liquor Store

Citations: 531 N.W.2d 845; 1995 Minn. LEXIS 449; 1995 WL 326731Docket: No. C9-94-1447

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; May 26, 1995; Minnesota; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The petition for further review by defendant Rodney Jones is granted solely to reverse part of the unpublished court of appeals’ decision dated January 31, 1995, thereby reinstating the summary judgment in favor of Jones from the Wright County District Court. The trial court determined that Jones was unaware of the decedent Sonya Opay’s situation and that her injury and death were not foreseeable to him. These findings are upheld as not clearly erroneous, establishing that there was no duty of care owed by Jones in this context, supported by precedents from Erickson v. Curtis Inv. Co. and Lundgren v. Fultz. Additionally, the petitions for further review submitted by Nicole Jones and Timothy Opay are denied. The order is signed by Associate Justice M. Jeanne Coyne.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Petitions for Further Review

Application: The court denied the petitions for further review submitted by Nicole Jones and Timothy Opay.

Reasoning: Additionally, the petitions for further review submitted by Nicole Jones and Timothy Opay are denied.

Duty of Care

Application: The trial court found that Rodney Jones had no duty of care towards the decedent as her injury and death were unforeseeable to him.

Reasoning: The trial court determined that Jones was unaware of the decedent Sonya Opay’s situation and that her injury and death were not foreseeable to him.

Standard for Foreseeability

Application: The court ruled that the findings regarding the lack of foreseeability were not clearly erroneous, thereby supporting the determination of no duty of care.

Reasoning: These findings are upheld as not clearly erroneous, establishing that there was no duty of care owed by Jones in this context, supported by precedents from Erickson v. Curtis Inv. Co. and Lundgren v. Fultz.

Summary Judgment Reinstatement

Application: The court reinstated the summary judgment in favor of Rodney Jones, reversing part of the appellate court's decision.

Reasoning: The petition for further review by defendant Rodney Jones is granted solely to reverse part of the unpublished court of appeals’ decision dated January 31, 1995, thereby reinstating the summary judgment in favor of Jones from the Wright County District Court.