Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Harper v. Herman

(1993)

Minnesota Supreme Court - 499 N.W.2d 472

tl;dr:

Plaintiff was out on Defendant's boat and dove into waters that Defendant knew were too shallow for diving; Court holds that Defendant had no duty to warn Plaintiff and thus cannot be held liable for his injuries.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Harper v. Herman

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Harper v. Herman case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingHarper v. Herman case brief facts & holding

Facts:Defendant Herman (64-year-old) hosted Plaintiff Harper (20-year-old) on his boat....

Holding:The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.The Court noted that superior knowledge...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Harper v. Herman case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Harper v. Herman | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: PAGE, Justice.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves a plaintiff who became quadriplegic after diving into shallow water while on a private boat. The plaintiff sued the boat owner, claiming that the owner had a duty to warn him of the shallow water. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the owner, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the owner had a duty to warn. However, the majority opinion of the court of appeals was then reversed, and the judgment was reinstated in favor of the owner. The issue on appeal was whether a boat owner who is a social host owes a duty of care to warn a guest on the boat that the water is too shallow for diving. The court found that there was no special relationship between the parties that would impose a duty on the boat owner to act for the plaintiff's protection. Additionally, the plaintiff was not deprived of opportunities to protect himself, and the boat owner was not expected to provide protection. Therefore, the boat owner had no duty to warn the plaintiff that the water was shallow, and the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation to look to the boat owner for protection. The court reversed the previous decision and reinstated the judgment in favor of the defendant.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Harper v. Herman case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Harper v. Herman

Chat for Harper v. Herman
brief-402
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.