 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watkins v. Greyhound Bus Lines9/14/2004
reasonably foreseen that the three men would switch cars, get a gun, and then drive to the terminal in St. Paul to murder decedent on the bus. The district court properly granted summary judgment.
Because we conclude that Greyhound did not have a duty to protect decedent from the criminal acts of the third parties involved in this case, it is not necessary to address appellants' claim that Greyhound, as a common carrier, owed decedent a heightened standard of care. See Austin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 277 Minn. 214, 217, 152 N.W.2d 136, 138 (1967) (if no harm is foreseeable, there can be no negligence). But if we were to address the claim, we would determine that the district court did not err in applying the duty of ordinary care to Greyhound. A common carrier is required to exercise only ordinary care to prevent injury to its passengers from acts of strangers not reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. Hill v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 112 Minn. 503, 507, 128 N.W. 831, 833 (1910).
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|