In interpreting a law, we avoid interpretations that give inappropriate results. See Minn. Stat. § 645.17 (2016) (provide that courts should consider that the legislator does not intend to produce usable results). Section 181.970 provides that an employer must “defend and indemnify its employee for civil damages,” regardless of the source of such damages. Since the source of the damage is not limited, the employer, in the event of a subsequent negligent action against the worker, would claim damages from the worker, with the sole aim of relieding on the worker from the same liability. This type of circular commitment thwarts the application of compensation. See Kronzer v. First Nat`l Bank of Minneapolis, 305 minn.

415, 429, 235 N.W.2d 187, 195-96 (1975) (1975) (if so, the dismissal of the appeal, if compensation agreements obliged the applicant to exempt the defendant from the applicant`s negligence). This was a controversial position, as the court used a dictionary definition of law to effectively nullify the customary law codified in that law. En First Class Valet Servs., LLC v. Yes, “indemnify” generally means the same as “hold unharmed.” In considering whether “indemnify” in a Minnesota statute is synonymous with “maintenance without damages,” the Minnesota Court held that “indemnify” means “keep compensated,” even if the effect is to nullify a long-standing priority defined in the common law. In choosing the notion of art to “compensate”, we assume that the legislature intends to use the accepted definition of this notion of art. The term “compensate” means “to hold unharmed.”