 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simonovic v. 900 Como Lake Limited Partnership1/25/2005
t was defective as well as unsafe, section 541.051 applies." Id. Similarly, we conclude that the glue stage of the carpet-replacement project was defective in the sense that it was incomplete or imperfect because it resulted in a slippery surface and there was nothing to alert passers-by to the unsafe condition.
III.
Appellant also contends that his failure-to-warn claim was not subject to Minn. Stat. § 541.051 because he was not complaining about the improvement itself, but "just wishes somebody would have warned him that the floor was slippery." Appellant generally cites Horvath v. Liquid Controls Corp., 455 N.W.2d 60, 64 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. July 13, 1990), to support his argument that respondents had an ongoing duty to warn separate from the improvement. We conclude Horvath is not applicable here.
Horvath involved a wrongful-death suit against the designer and installer of an anhydrous-ammonia facility and the manufacturer of component parts. Horvath, 455 N.W.2d at 62. And the Horvath court ruled that the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051 did not apply, but that " he wrongful-death statute and the cases relative thereto govern this cause of action." Id. at 64, 65.
We conclude that neither the facts nor the analysis of Horvath apply here. Moreover, the district court correctly held that appellant's "theories of negligence and of failure to warn are actions in tort," subject to the broad language in the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1.
Finally, appellant argues for the first time on appeal that the exception under subdivision 1(c) of the statute saves his claim from the statute of limitations. But we limit our review to the matters argued before and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that " reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it." (quotation omitted)). Because this argument was not presented to the district court it is not properly before us.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|