See, e.g., Lammle v. Gappa Oil Co., Inc., No. A08-0582, 2009 WL 67438, at *8 (Minn.Ct.App. Jan. 13, 2009) (explaining that absent a reading of the warning, there is no causal link between the alleged inadequate warning and the injury).However

As relevant here, however, Minnesota courts have consistently held that a plaintiff's failure to read a warning on a product precludes a failure-to-warn claim as a matter of law. See Lammle v. Gappa Oil Co., Inc., No. A08-0582, 2009 WL 67438 at *8 (Minn. App. Jan. 13, 2009) (absent a reading of the warning, there is no causal link between the alleged inadequate warning and the injury, and a district court may properly grant summary judgment to the product manufacturer under such circumstances); Lindsay v. St. Olaf College, No. A06-2416, 2008 WL 223661 at *5 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2008); Marko v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 1994 WL 615004, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 9, 1995) (affirming summary judgment in defendants' favor on a failure-to-warn claim where plaintiff's practice was not to read warnings and plaintiff "conceded that he did not read the warnings actually provided").

The district court granted summary judgment for these defendants and certified the judgments for immediate appeal under Minnesota Rule of Procedure 54.02. Lammle appealed, and this court affirmed. See Lammle v. Gappa Oil Co., No. A08-0582 (Minn. App. Jan. 13, 2009), review denied (Minn. Mar. 31, 2009). After the appeal, Gappa also moved for summary judgment.