§ 513.076

Minnesota Statutes

Source: 2025 Minnesota Statutes. For the official text, see revisor.mn.gov.

Citing Cases (10)

Minnesota Supreme Court

In Re Estate of Palmen · 1999 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Taras Lendzyk v. Laura Lee Wrazidlo, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Estate of Peterson · 1998 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Estate of Palmen · 1998 13 citations

+ 13 more citations in this opinion.

Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enterprises, Inc. · 1997 2 citations

DECISION The plain language of the Act permits recovery for all damages sustained by any person injured as a result of another person's intoxication. Lefto and her daughter may have suffered loss of means of support and pecuniary loss due to Lieder's intoxication. Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that Lefto and her daughter may recover under the Act for their loss of means of support and pecuniary loss. Affirmed. HARVEY A. HOLTAN, Judge, dissenting. The Act permits recovery for a "spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss." Minn. Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 1. Because I believe the legislature never intended to provide protection under the Act to people with no legal relationship to those injured under the Act, I dissent. I recognize that, as the majority notes, courts apply the plain meaning of statutes when the statutory language is unambiguous. I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that the Act is unambiguous. The "or other person" appears at first blush to apply to any person. But if the legislature had intended the "or other person" language to encompass any person injured within the meaning of the Act, I see no reason why the legislature would not have written the Act to cover "any person injured * * *," without reference to other, specific classes of individuals. Because the "or other person" language is ambiguous, the court should apply the doctrine of ejusdem generis to determine whether respondents fall within the scope of the Act. *751 Under the rule of ejusdem generis, "[g]eneral words are construed to be restricted in their meaning by preceding particular words." Minn. Stat. § 645.08(3) (1996). Because the individuals preceding the "or other person" language in the Act all have a legal relationship with the injured person, recovery under the Act in connection with Mr. Lefto's accident is limited to those having a legal relationship with Mr. Lefto. Respondents had no such relationship. They had no rights vis à vis Mr. Lefto. They had no legal right to support from him. See Minn. Stat. § 513.076 (1996) (providing that a court shall dismiss any claim by an extramarital cohabitant to the earnings or property of another as contrary to public policy, absent a valid contract concerning the parties' property and financial relations). Because respondents lacked the requisite relationship with Mr. Lefto at the time of the accident, they do not come within the protection of the Act. This court recently addressed the scope of the Act's "or other person" language in Line Constr. Benefit Fund v. Skeates, 563 N.W.2d 757 (Minn.App.1997). In that case, an insurer sought to recover under the Act for injuries sustained by a policyholder, arguing that the insurer came within the "or other person" language of the Act. Id. at 759. In rejecting the insurer's argument, the court cited Empire Fire & Marine Ins. v. Williams, 265 Minn. 333, 335, 121 N.W.2d 580, 582 (1963), in which the court stated that the principle of ejusdem generis precludes extension of the term "other person" beyond the class or classes specifically enumerated. There is no indication that the Legislature intended "other person" to include an insurance carrier as coming within the same general classification as "husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer."