*1 minor, ANDERSON, by Ron Katherine Pattee, her Melinda Anderson and
ald C. Appel guardians, natural
parents and (C5-94- (C9-93-2426), Respondent
lant
182),
v. Jr., SHAUGHNESSY,
Stephen (C9-93-2426),
Respondent (C5-94-182),
Appellant District School 273, Respondent, Jr., SHAUGHNESSY, Defendant
Stephen Plaintiff, Respondent Third-Party (C5-94-182),
(C9-93-2426), Appellant CORPORATION,
BENJAMIN SHERIDAN Products, al., et division of Sheridan
Third-Party Defendants, Respondents, Third-Party Marketing,
Defendant, Respondent. C5-94-182, C9-93-2426.
Nos. Appeals of Minnesota.
Court of Sept.
Review Granted *2 Schieffer, Wood, Jr.,
Richard J. John W. Wood, P.A., & Wayzata, Johnson for Kath- Anderson, minor, by erine Ronald C. Pattee, parents Melinda her guardians. and natural Peschel, J. Lindberg, Mark Johnson & P.A., Minneapolis, Stephen Shaughnessy, Jr. Hunt, Koch,
Kay Nord Ehrich Marc A. L. Johannsen, Minneapolis, School Dist. No. 273. backpack. charged shifting he Nygaard, Magnuson, Eric J. while was
Richard J. Cheeseboro, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Anderson claims that went off Edwin Arundel, Minneapolis, pointing while it at various event, Marketing. objects. Corp. any hit Anderson was eye. paintball right and blinded her *3 SHORT, P.J., by and decided Considered by Shaughnessy The used pistol was man- HARTEN, JJ. and and SCHUMACHER Benjamin by Air ufactured in 1990 Rifle Company, entity the that survived the 1978 OPINION Benjamin merger Air of Riñe and Sheridan SCHUMACHER, Judge. pistol imprinted Products. The is with the Inc., Marketing, words “MFG. FOR Pursuit Anderson, minor, a Appellants Katherine Northbrook, IL 60062” and Prod- “Sheridan Pattee, by Ronald Anderson and Melinda C. ucts, Racine, 1991, WI 53403.” Prior to parents guardians, and Ste- her and natural Benjamin Air Rifle had a contract with Pur- argue the phen Shaughnessy, Jr. that district paintball pistols to provide to Pursuit for by granting summary judgment court erred January Benjamin retail sale. Sher- respondent Independent School in favor of purchased Benjamin idan of (District). certain assets Shaughnessy 273 District No. gun Air air business. Rifle’s challenges the district court’s also summary respondent judgment (Pursuit). review, Marketing By notice of ISSUES Benjamin Corporation
respondent by concluding 1. Did the district court err Sheridan) (Benjamin that claims the district District a that the did owe by denying sum- court erred its motion for Anderson? mary judgment. part, in We affirm reverse by granting 2. Did the district court err part in and remand. judgment Shaughnes- summary to Pursuit on sy’s claim? failure to
FACTS 22, 1992, April Shaughnessy purchased by granting On 3. the district court Did err paintball pistol paintballs Shaughnes- and a number of a to Pursuit on student.1 The sale occurred at sy’s from fellow failure to warn claim? school, Valley Junior View by granting 4. Did the district err operated by the High, is District. which summary judgment to Sheridan on afternoon, Shaughnessy That rode a school Shaughnessy’s to warn claim? home with Anderson. Before the bus
bus
Shaughnessy
grounds,
took
left the school
ANALYSIS
backpack,
it out of
pistol
the
from his
aimed
summary judg
appeal
an
from
On
window,
hydrant.
at a
and fired it
fire
a bus
ment,
genu
whether there
we determine
Shaughnessy do this
Another bus driver saw
fact
whether the
ine issues of material
and
Jacobson,
and radioed Manford
the driver
law.
applying
district court erred
Offerdahl
stopped
Shaughnessy’s bus.
Jacobson
Hosps.
University
&
.
Minn.
v
around,
bus,
anyone
asked
had
turned
and
Clinics, 426 N.W.2d
weapon. Shaughnessy
pistol
held
over
light
be viewed in
evidence must
was
his head and told Jacobson that
it
party against
whom
most favorable
pistol.
Shaughnessy
told
water
Jacobson
Abdallah,
granted.
summary.judgment was
pis-
away. Shaughnessy
returned the
put
Martin,
416, 424, 65
Inc. v.
242 Minn.
backpack
his
the bus continued on
tol to
641, 646
N.W.2d
rounds.
its
governing common car
later, Shaughnessy
The rules
A short
time
previously
applied
been
stop.
riers have
got off the
at the same
bus
by
as a
operation of a vehicle defined
pistol
dis-
statute
claims that
paint.
capsules
with
powered by
fires
filled
carbon dioxide and
Independent
imposed
school
v.
also
on him
bus. Jam
Sch. Dist
to use care
(Minn.App.1987), protect
passengers
arising
from harm
out
pet.
prohibition.
Nov.
rev. denied
of violations of the
principles
The use of common carrier
Moreover,
Jacobson had a
appropriate in
instance because the
ve
ordinary
prevent
injuries
use
care
operated by
hicle was
the Duluth
owned and
by Shaughnessy’s
caused
acts even if there
Authority
Transit
and the student
awas
explicit
prohibiting guns
had been no
rules
fare-paying passenger.
Id.
170. In a case
on buses. A
school
must exercise
one,
such
where the
as this
school bus
ordinary
prevent
care to
harm to a student
operated by a
district and the
school
student
foreseeable,
by
student’s
caused
another
sud
fare,
pays no
a school bus driver’s duties are
Raleigh
den misconduct.
imposed upon
defined
the duties
*4
625,
572,
Sch. Dist.
275
N.W.2d
576
districts,
by
imposed upon
duties
not
the
(Minn.1978).
Shaugh
Jacobson knew that
Ohm,
common carriers.
Anderson v.
258
See
nessy
pistol,
clearly
had a
and it is
foresee
(Minn.1977);
N.W.2d 114
Mikes v. Baum
pistol may
able that a child with a
423,
shoot
gartner, 277 Minn.
233
perform actually performed
alleged
de-
tracted to
or
ser-
product would have indicated
Gorath,
product
441
at 132.
product,
N.W.2d
knew of
de-
fect.
vice of the
or
and of the
or owner of the
fects
location
Here,
has
offered
product.
Hydra
Corp.,
Tool
Niccum v.
expert
pistol’s
that
a firearms
opinion of
N.W.2d
improp
safety was defective because was
accidentally di
erly positioned and could be
The district court denied
minimal amount of force.
sengaged with a
Sheridan because
may be
suggests
This evidence
defects that
fully responded
Shaugh-
company had
readily apparent
is sufficient to create
discovery
nessy’s
requests. Summary judg
inspection
fact
an
question of
as to whether
oppos
granted
have
ment should not
when an
Pursuit would
indicated
be
safety
the district
was defective. We reverse
party
complete
rele
ing
has been unable
summary judgment
Pur
grant of
court’s
discovery through
fault
vant
no
of its own.
on
claim.
(Minn.
Perl,
Rice v.
N.W.2d
412-13
1982); see also Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.06.
legal
a seller
3. Whether
has
question
law.
generally
to warn is
case,
re
this
the information
A
at 133.
exists
the harmful
Id.
quested by Shaughnessy is relevant
to his
reasonably
was a direct and
fore
occurrence
*5
Benjamin
against
claim
Sheridan.
Informa
consequence
negli
allegedly
of the
seeable
are
tion about customer lists and invoices
gent act.
v. F.L. Smithe Mach.
Germann
question
Benjamin
Co.,
to the
of whether
No relevant
395 N.W.2d
duty arises
the connection
should
known of
location
between
Sheridan
have
so
and the act is
remote that
Similarly,
occurrence
the pistol.
or owner of
informa
liability
public policy.
imposing
would violate
may
pending litigation
about
and claims
tion
Id. at 924.
Benjamin
help determine whether
Sheridan
product
have been aware of
defects.
should
There is no evidence that the
Benja
affirm the district court’s denial of
We
during
relatively
modified
short time
was
judg
summary
min
Sheridan’s motion
its sale and the accident.
Gor
between
Cf.
Shaughnessy’s
to
claim.
ment on
failure warn
ath,
(multiple
judgment to Pursuit on duty to Anderson. The District owed ure to warn claim. by granting sum- district court erred The Benjamin alleges that even Sheridan Shaughnessy’s mary judgment Pursuit on though corporate it was the successor to claim. district failure manufacturer, pistol’s it is entitled to sum- summary judgment by granting erred duty had mary judgment no because to warn on pistol’s alleged de- warn of the properly denied The district court claim. disagree. fects. We on summary judgment to corporation A successor has to warn warn claim. Shaughnessy’s failure to in certain situations. Relevant consider- part, part and in reversed in Affirmed include the successor took ations whether contracts, predecessor’s con- remanded. over its service
SHORT, Judge part, in (concurring dis-
senting part). concur, except
I as to of sum the reversal
mary for the school district. As to issue, respectfully I dissent and would the trial
affirm court’s decision. school had no after she
alighted safely from the bus. Restatement
(Second) § c A Torts 314A cmt. special duty carrier under
common no
one who has left the vehicle and ceased to passenger. Minneapolis
become Patton v. Co., 368, 370-71, Ry.
St. 247 Minn. 77 N.W.2d (1956) (carrier’s pas towards
senger passenger ceases once has reason opportunity beyond getting danger
able movement);
from the vehicle’s Jam v. Inde
pendent School Dist. No.
165, 170(Minn.App.) (duty concerning of care transportation of school children ends
when the child is left in a safe place for the
child), pet. rev. denied' Nov. undisputed It is that Anderson was injured property on school or while rid bus,
ing and that was left she at a
place safe for children. Because the school prevent Shaughnessy
district had no engaging in
from tortious off conduct
property, the trial properly dismissed negligence against action the school dis
trict. PEDERSON,
Elizabeth Jeanette
Respondent,
CLARKSON LINDLEY
TRUST, Appellant.
No. C8-94-483. Appeals
Court of of Minnesota. Nichols, Peterson,
John C. Michael R. appellant. Minneapolis, for Bothe, Paul, respondent. Chris St.