Minnesota Supreme Court, 1995

Anderson ex rel. Anderson v. Shaughnessy

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 13, 1995 · Tomljanovich

526 N.W.2d 625; 1995 Minn. LEXIS 4 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Kay Nord Hunt, Ehrich L. Koch, Marc A. Johannsen, Minneapolis, for appellant., Richard J. Shieffer, John W. Wood, Jr., Johnson & Wood, P.A., Wayzata, for Katherine Anderson, etc., appellant (C9-93-2426), respondent (C5-94-182)., Austin Ditzler, Minneapolis, for Benjamin Sheridan Corp., Mark J. Peschel, Minneapolis, for Stephen Shaughnessy, Jr., respondent (C9-93-2426), appellant (C5-94-182). .

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1995, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

ANDERSON BY ANDERSON v. Shaughnessy (Minn. 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

We granted the petition for further review to consider the question of the propriety of the court of appeals’ reversal of the summary judgment entered in the school district’s favor. The court of appeals concluded the school district owed a duty to Katherine Anderson, and reversed the summary judgment and remanded the questions of any breach of that duty and causation for trial with other claims asserted by the plaintiffs against other named defendants. Anderson v. Shaughnessy, 519 N.W.2d 229 (Minn.App. 1994). We reverse.

Plaintiff, Katherine Anderson, a student in Independent School District No. 273, was safely transported on a school bus to her destination. She and fellow student Stephen Shaughnessy disembarked, the school bus departed, and shortly thereafter, Anderson was injured when a paintball pistol held by Shaughnessy discharged. The plaintiffs sought to impose a duty on the school district on the basis that while the students *626were riding the bus, its driver was informed by another bus driver that Shaughnessy had a paintball pistol, had fired it from the bus window, and was brandishing it. The driver was told that it was a squirt gun and, at the driver’s direction, Shaughnessy put the pistol away. No further incident occurred until after the students had exited the bus and it had departed. The trial court refused to extend the school district’s duty to safely transport its students beyond the point of safe disembarkment. We agree.

The duty of care with respect to transporting school children has yet to be expanded beyond the safe deposit of the children at their scheduled destinations in a manner designed to allow their safe crossing of streets after disembarkment and we decline to do so here. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A cmt. c (1965).

Reversed and summary judgment in favor of the school district is reinstated.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.