Court Opinion

ID: 9697028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:04:13.06467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:28.644472
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(dissenting).
It is my view that the cause of action survives under Minn. St. 573.01, because it is one in the nature of negligence. The fact that the Civil Damage Act removes an unwarranted immunity which the defendant enjoyed under the common law and that it imposes strict liability should not compel us to view it as entirely unique or alien in nature. It may be true, as the majority opinion suggests, that it provides a form of social insurance, but it is also true that it finds justification in fundamental negligence principles which recognize that the violation of legal standards imposed by law may create foreseeable hazards which involve unreasonable risk to others. There is so much of the idea of fault, both in the substance of the action and in the procedures for enforcement of liability, that I feel a reasonable interpretation requires that it be con*222sidered as one “caused by the negligence of a decedent” within the purview of § 573.01.
For the foregoing reason, I respectfully dissent.
Mr. Justice Sheran, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.