State Not Strictly Liable for Dog Attacks
In Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the State is not strictly liable for injuries arising out of an unprovoked attack by a state patrol dog. Minnesota statutes impose strict liability, that is liability without the need to prove negligence or failure to use reasonable care, on dog owners for injuries arising out of unprovoked attacks. However, government entities enjoy numerous immunities to suit and, in this case, the court of appeals held that the State had not waived its immunities to strict liability dog attack claims. With strict liability claims unavailable, the claimant... Read More
Just the FAQs: Minnesota’s Ban on Non-Compete Agreements
Non-Compete Agreements have always been disfavored in the eyes of the law. Now they are banned in Minnesota. Here is what you need to know: What is a Non-Compete Agreement? A Non-Compete Agreement is any agreement that prevents an employee from obtaining certain employment following termination. It includes prohibitions on working in a particular capacity or for particular employers/competitors in a specified geographic region and/or for a specified amount of time. Did Minnesota Ban Non-Compete Agreements? Yes. Employers may no longer enter into Non-Compete Agreements with their employees or independent contractors. When does the ban take effect? The new law... Read More
Just the FAQs: Earned Sick and Safe Time
Effective January 1, 2024, Minnesota employers must provide employees with paid time off, which can be used for certain reasons, such as sickness of the employee or a family member or to seek assistance if the employee or a family member has experienced domestic abuse. Here is an overview of the new law. Who must provide Earned Sick and Safe Time? All Minnesota businesses with one or more employees must provide their employees with Earned Sick and Safe Time. Who is eligible for Earned Sick and Safe Time? Any employee who performs work for at least 80 hours in a... Read More
Unsolicited comments about an employee to other employers could give rise to defamation claims.
On January 30, 2023, in Abdul-Haqq v. LaLiberte, the Minnesota court of appeals held that “Minnesota law does not recognize a qualified privilege for defamatory statements made while dispensing unsolicited career advice.” There, LaLiberte contracted with Liam Hawkins as a sales representative for a storm-damage repair company. Several years later, Hawkins contracted with a company associated with Abdul-Haqq. LaLiberte subsequently sent several texts messages to Hawkins that disparaged Abdul-Haqq so that Hawkins could make an informed decision about working for Abdul-Haqq. Abdul-Haqq then sued LaLiberte, alleging the statements in LaLiberte’s text messages were defamatory. A jury awarded $300,000 in damages... Read More
Minnesota Supreme Court Protects Sex Assault Victims’ Privacy Rights
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reinforced the privacy rights of sexual abuse victims. In In re Hope Coalition, the court held that a criminal defendant’s interest in obtaining the records of a sexual assault victim’s counselor for the purposes of developing his defense did not overcome a statutory protection in Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(k), which “creates a privilege for sexual assault counselors.” In sum, the court held that the statutory privacy protection “cannot be pierced in criminal proceedings without the victim’s consent.” The statute did “not permit disclosure of privileged records in a criminal proceeding, even for in camera... Read More
State may be liable for shut downs of business
The Minnesota Supreme Court left open a narrow door for potential claims against the State for economic losses suffered by businesses from COVID related shutdowns. In Buzzell v. Walz, the plaintiff sued for damages over the shutdown of his wedding venue and restaurant. The court addressed a remedial provision of the emergency powers law, Minn. Stat. Ch. 12, which provides that an “owner of commandeered property must be promptly paid just compensation for its use and all damages done to the property while so used for emergency management purposes.” The court held that, for property to be “commandeered” so as to... Read More
Minnesota Court of Appeals Decides Liability Waiver Issue
In Justice v. Marvel, LLC, A20-1318 (Minn. App. July 19, 2021), the court of appeals decided several issues related to the enforceability of liability waivers. First, the court held that a “parent is authorized to sign, on behalf of his or her own minor child, an exculpatory clause that releases a negligence claim against a third-party.” The court further held that if “the exculpatory clause is valid and enforceable, it is binding on the child after the child becomes an adult.” Second, the court held that an “exculpatory clause that is overly broad because it purports to release claims of... Read More
Requirements for Triggering Pre-Verdict Interest
On January 11, 2021, in Blehr v. Anderson, the court of appeals clarified the requirements for triggering pre-judgment interest under Minn. Stat. 549.09. Section 549.09 allows pre-verdict interest “from the time of the commencement of the action…or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Often, claimants will send a written letter to the defendant or insurance company prior to making a demand or commencing suit to ensure pre-verdict interest begins to accrue during the investigatory and pre-litigation phase of a claim. Prior to Blehr, debates occurred over what information was sufficient for a pre-suit letter to... Read More
Update on Expert Witness Requirements in Malpractice Claims
Minn. Stat. § 544.42 generally requires that claimants, who are bringing negligence or malpractice claims against various types of professionals, provide expert testimony establishing the elements of their claim. Claimants may try to avoid this requirement by rebranding their claims as something other than negligence. In Mittelstaedt v. Henney, decided January 4, 2021, the claimant sued his attorney for “breach of fiduciary duty.” The claimant argued that section 544.42’s expert review requirements did not apply because the claim was not for “negligence” or “malpractice.” The court disagreed. It compared the underlying elements of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims... Read More
Who Owns the Dog?
Let’s say you own a dog named Oliver. You love this dog very much but move away for school, so you ask a friend to keep him. Your friend agrees. When you return from school two years later, you ask for Oliver back, but your friend refuses to return Oliver to you. Whose dog is it? This fact situation is actually quite common in our society. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently decided this very issue in the case Zephier v. Agate. The question turned on whether Oliver was “abandoned” property in the legal sense. As a general rule, property... Read More