Zerby v. Warren
Minnesota Supreme Court
210 N.W.2d 58 (1973)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Steven Zerby (plaintiff), age 14, went with Randy Rieken, age 13, to a store owned by Chester Warren (defendant). Robert Deike (defendant) worked as a clerk at Warren’s store. Deike sold two pints of glue to Rieken. The glue contained toluene, an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent that, if inhaled, is toxic to the central-nervous system. A few hours later, Zerby and Rieken intentionally sniffed the glue. The glue’s fumes affected Zerby’s central-nervous system, causing him to fall into a creek and drown. Minnesota Statute 145.38 prohibited selling glues containing aromatic hydrocarbon solvents to minors. Minnesota Statute 145.39 prohibited minors from recreationally using glues containing aromatic hydrocarbon solvents or aiding minors in doing so. Zerby’s family sued the defendants for the wrongful death of their son. The defendants sued Rieken for contributory negligence, and Zerby’s family added a claim against Rieken. The defendants and Rieken each raised the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and assumption of risk by Zerby. In a pretrial ruling, the trial court held that the defendants were subject to absolute liability and denied the use of comparative negligence or assumption of risk as defenses. Ruling on stipulated facts, the trial court found in favor of Zerby and denied the defendants’ claim against Rieken. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
