Court Opinion

ID: 9884933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:25:10.31408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:42.620388
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the court of appeals. In my opinion, they quite accurately followed *538the precedent of this court as set out in Holman v. All Nation Insurance Company, 288 N.W.2d 244 (Minn.1980). I find that case and the facts indistinguishable. The only way that the cases differ is that the Holman case was decided in 1977. It certainly is not persuasive to me that that issue was not raised merely because Holman did not specifically state that the case applied to a single car accident. The decision on that issue was implicit in the decision itself.
Accordingly, if we feel that Holman is no longer good law, we should be intellectually honest enough to overrule that case, not attempt to distinguish it.
SCOTT, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the dissent of Justice Yetka.