A Primer on Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance

The Minnesota No-Fault Act has undergone substantial change since its enactment in 1974. Recent legislative modifications and judicial constructions of the Act\u27s provisions have served to correct earlier deficiencies, but have raised new and complex problems of interpretation. In light of these developments, Professor Steenson provides an overview that explains how the Act functions. After tracing the history of automobile insurance regulation in Minnesota, Professor Steenson examines in detail the various compulsory and optional insurance coverages under the Act, the proper sources of payment under those coverages, and the limitations imposed by the Act on the right to recover damages in a tort action

Ventura v. Kyle and American Sniper; The Anatomy of a Public Figure’s Lawsuit

Chris Kyle\u27s book, American Sniper, detailed his exploits as a prolific Navy SEAL sniper. In a book subchapter Kyle detailed an encounter with a Mr. Scruff Face in a San Diego Bar. The book states that Ventura made certain statements that were demeaning of the United States and the Navy SEALS. Scruff Face was subsequently identified by Chris Kyle as Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota. Ventura sued Chris Kyle for defamation, appropriation, and unjust enrichment. Relying on trial court documents, briefs, and the opinions in the case, this article probes those theories of recovery with an emphasis on the jury instructions, with a view to establishing clearer instructions in public figure lawsuits involving overlapping defamation and appropriation claims

Fundamental Rights in the Gray Area: The Right of Privacy Under the Minnesota Constitution

This Article explores the constitutional aspects of Minnesota privacy law. Part II briefly explains federal privacy law to provide a baseline for consideration of privacy law in Minnesota. Part III examines the right of privacy as it has evolved in the Minnesota common law. Part IV evaluates the Minnesota Supreme Court\u27s application of federal privacy standards and then examines the court\u27s decisions that outline the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution. Part V concludes by raising questions concerning the potential application of the court\u27s concept of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution as applied to two areas: same-sex marriages and abortion rights

A Thirtieth Anniversary Tribute to the William Mitchell Law Review

Article, a tribute to the William Mitchell Law Review on its thirtieth anniversary, traces the history of the first issue of the Law Review

The Fault with Comparative Fault: The Problem of Individual Comparisons in a Modified Comparative Fault Jurisdiction

Minnesota courts have interpreted the Minnesota Comparative Fault statute as requiring comparison of a plaintiff\u27s negligence with the individual negligence of each defendant. Exceptions to this rule involve joint venture cases. This Article examines the individual comparison rule and explores an alternative rule which provides for a comparison of the plaintiff\u27s negligence with the aggregate negligence of the defendants

Minnesota Negligence Law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harms

The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for judges and lawyers, primarily in Minnesota, who are seeking to understand how the Third Restatement’s approach to negligence law fits with Minnesota negligence law. The first Part of the article examines the approach of the Third Restatement. Because decisions in other states applying the Third Restatement will be important for courts in Minnesota and elsewhere in deciding whether to apply the Third Restatement, the second Part examines early reports on the Third Restatement in Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Delaware

A Comparative Analysis of Minnesota Products Liability Law and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability

This Article compares the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability with Minnesota products liability law. The Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability provides a yardstick for measuring products liability law in each individual state. Minnesota\u27s law is largely similar to the rules set out in the Restatement. While Minnesota has not yet adopted all of the positions in all of the rules, the Minnesota Supreme Court has taken positions on the rules governing liability, which are substantially the same. It no longer seems possible to argue that negligence principles do not control in cases involving design defect and failure to warn. The strict liability vernacular may still be used in design defect cases, but the important question is whether the supreme court\u27s statement in Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., that proof of a feasible alternative is not part of the plaintiff\u27s prima facie case in a design case, establishes a meaningful wall between the theories. This article proceeds on a section-by-section basis, explaining each section of the Restatement (Third) and comparing it to Minnesota law