 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kietzer v. O'Lakes2/19/2002
Appellant Jeffrey Kietzer challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Land O'Lakes. Kietzer contends that the nature of his contract with Land O'Lakes does not preclude tort recovery. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
From 1997 to April 2000, Kietzer personally owned and managed a flock of laying hens. The process of owning and operating the flock began in November of 1996, when Scott Waldner, a Land O'Lakes employee, contacted Kietzer to see if he was interested in "putting a flock of birds in." Kietzer expressed interest and Waldner assisted with locating and transporting the birds. Kietzer asked how he could pay for Waldner's help. According to Kietzer, Waldner responded by saying that there was no charge and "as long as you feed Land O'Lakes feed, I'm your consultant for the flock. Any time there's a problem, give me a call."
Waldner told Kietzer that Land O'Lakes could formulate feed for Kietzer and that Land O'Lakes could provide the feed through Meadowland Farmers Coop. Land O'Lakes sells the individual products such as vitamins and feed ingredients that are individually mixed together to serve as feed. Then, Land O'Lakes formulates the feed and Meadowland mixes it. When the flock was put in, Kietzer began to order Land O'Lakes feed. Waldner testified that he personally formulated Kietzer's feed, which was a standard formulation. Kietzer admits that he could have switched brands of feed anytime he wanted to, but he stayed with Land O'Lakes because otherwise he would not have had access to Waldner for consulting purposes.
In early June of 1999, about the same time he received a new shipment of feed, Kietzer noticed that the birds were not eating as much, the feed looked abnormal, and the consistency and color of the bird manure was abnormal. Consequently, Kietzer asked Waldner for advice. Waldner went out to Kietzer's property and looked at the feed. Suspecting a mixing problem, Waldner recommended to Meadowland that it double the mixing time of the feed from two to four minutes. Samples of the feed were also sent to Meadowland for evaluation. The rest of the feed was left for the birds to continue to eat. By the time the test results came back, the load of feed had been completely consumed. The test results showed high levels of protein, phosphorus and calcium, which Waldner attributed to the mixing problem. The nutritional imbalance in the feed caused the birds to lay eggs with poor eggshell quality. This resulted in substantial egg loss. Consequently, Kietzer removed the flock.
Kietzer filed suit against Meadowland and Land O'Lakes alleging breach of contract and negligence. Kietzer subsequently settled his claims against Meadowland. Land O'Lakes then moved for summary judgment on both the breach of contract claim and the negligence claim. The district court granted summary judgment on the negligence claim, but was silent on the breach of contract claim. Kietzer then filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the breach of contract claim without prejudice. The district court granted the motion. Kietzer now appeals the grant of summary judgment.
DECISION
1. Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, etc. "show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted).
On appeal from summary judgment, this court asks two questions: "(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law." State by Coop
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|