Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14

Respondent Domagala sued Rolland and Rolland Building Corp. for negligence after a skid loader attachment fell and amputated three toes.
Parties were not in a special relationship; district court found no duty to warn or protect, but allowed a general duty to exercise reasonable care.
Jury was instructed with contradictory instructions: no duty to warn/protect vs. duty to warn under Restatement § 321 and general reasonable care.
Court of Appeals held there was no specific duty to warn but recognized a general duty to exercise reasonable care, remanding for new trial.
Minnesota Supreme Court must decide whether a warning can be part of reasonable care and whether Restatement § 321 should be adopted.
Court ultimately holds a defendant may breach the general duty by failing to warn, and remands for new trial; declines to adopt § 321.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion on jury instructions	Domagala contends instructions misstated law and caused prejudice.	Rolland argues instructions correctly stated law and were not prejudicial.	Yes; instructions were prejudicial and misleading, warranting new trial.
Whether Rolland owed a specific duty to warn absent a special relationship	Domagala relies on general duty to warn under reasonable care.	Rolland invokes Harper to bar any duty to warn without a special relationship.	Rolland did not owe a specific duty to warn absent a special relationship.
Whether Rolland owed a general duty of reasonable care and could warn	Duty to exercise reasonable care could include warning of danger created by conduct.	Duty arises only from misfeasance or special relationships; warning not required absent §321.	Yes; Rolland owed a general duty of reasonable care; warning can satisfy that duty.
Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321 should be adopted	Section 321 creates a broad duty to prevent unreasonable risk after act creating danger.	Court should not adopt § 321 due to policy concerns and criticisms.	Court declines to adopt § 321 as a basis for imposing a duty of care.
Whether the case should be retried due to prejudicial instructions	New trial warranted to cure instructional error affecting duty/breach issues.	Any error could be harmless; verdict should stand.	New trial granted on remand due to prejudicial instructions.

Harper v. Herman, 499 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. 1993) (no duty to warn absent special relationship)
Delgado v. Lohmar, 289 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. 1979) (special relationship and duty to warn linked)
Zylka v. Leikvoll, 274 Minn. 435, 144 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 1966) (duty to warn/remove hazard when creating a dangerous situation)
Hollinbeck v. Downey, 261 Minn. 481, 113 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 1962) (duty to warn a person in a place of danger)
Ferguson v. Benson, 309 Minn. 160, 244 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1976) (duty to warn in road construction context)
Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010) (foreseeability and duty in Minnesota negligence)
Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2007) (special relationship and duty framework)