Ramirez v. Marketown Foods

2 Citing cases

  1. Perdue v. Walgreen Co.

    Civ. No. 09-992 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn. Sep. 9, 2010)

    1993) (in opposing summary judgment, party may not rely on general statements of fact but must point to specific facts that create issue for trial; such facts must be based on "concrete evidence" and "have some foundation other than mere conjecture"); Otis v. First Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis, 195 N.W.2d 432, 433 (Minn. 1972) (per curiam) (no inference of actual knowledge of puddle on floor could be drawn despite hard rain outside); Messner, 57 N.W.2d at 662 (affirming directed verdict for defendant where plaintiff slipped on banana peel in area of grocery store adjacent to produce department because "[t]here was no direct evidence as to how the banana peels came to be on the floor"); Ramirez v. MarkeTown Foods, No. C2-00-1736, 2001 WL 682732, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. June 19, 2001) (summary judgment for grocery store affirmed where plaintiff proffered no "competent, non-speculative evidence" that store employee spilled water and lettuce on floor). Such speculation "as to who caused [the] dangerous condition" about which Perdue complains "warrants judgment for" Walgreens. Rinn, 611 N.W.2d at 365.

  2. Sila v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    Civil No. 02-1070 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Sep. 3, 2003)

    More specifically, to ultimately prevail, Sila has the burden of proving either that Sears "caused the dangerous condition or that it knew, or should have known, that the condition existed." Ramirez v. Marketown Foods, No. C2-00-1736, 2001 WL 682732 at *2 (Minn.Ct.App. June 19, 2001) (quoting Messner v. Red Owl Stores, 57 N.W.2d 659, 662 (Minn. 1953)).