Green Valley Case Summary

Words: 1743
Pages: 7

Green Valley can show Mormont knew of and appreciated the inherent risk of slipping while bowling because she signed an email copy of the safety rules that warned her of the risks.

Mormont knew of and appreciated the risks inherent in bowling because she witnessed an employee slip on an adjacent lane. In Minnesota, a person is knowledgeable and appreciative of a risk if they: (1) admit to their knowledge and appreciation of the risk or (2) the court can infer this knowledge and appreciation of risk from their previous experience with the sport or from warnings they received. Grady v. Green Acres, Inc, 826 N.W.2d 547, 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013); Jussila v. United States Snowmobile Ass’n, 556 N.W.2d 234, 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996); Schneider ex rel. Schneider v. Erikson, 654 N.W.2d 144, 149-150 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In Grady, a case concerning an adult who was injured while snow tubing after colliding with another patron, Grady claimed Green Acres, Inc., the owner, was
…show more content…
Rusciano, 445 N.W.2d at 272. The question before the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in this case was whether the jury should have been instructed to consider whether the plaintiff had primarily assumed the risk. Id. The court held that, because the driver’s acceleration created a new risk and the defendant had limited time to react to that risk, there need not be instruction on primary assumption of the risk because actions of the defendant enlarged the risk. Id. In Schneider, the plaintiff was struck in the eye by a paintball game while not wearing the goggles that he had. Schneider, 654 N.W.2d at 147. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that, because the players in the game were continuing to abide by the no headshots rule, there was no “new risk” as required by Rusciano, and so the risk was not enlarged. Id.at 152; Rusciano, 445 N.W.2d at