2005-09-28 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP-19-2005 14:59 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 5512811295 P.04 48 addition, the liability of a municipality to the owner of the premise for causing the overflow of water ... does not make them liable to third persons for the drowning of a child in a pond. Ig., 52 Neb. at ___, 72 N.W. at 317. The attractive nuisance doctrine has generally been regarded as part of the law of negligence. Conditions on privately owned land do not usually impose any responsibility upon the municipality on the theory of attractive nuisance. McQuillan's Municioal Coroorations, S53.59 (f); See also Rhodes v. City of Kansas City, 167 Kan. 719, 208 P.2d 275 (1949); Woolf v. City of Dallas, 311 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958). MINNESOTA LAW The attractive nuisance doctrine is not followed in Minnesota. Negligence must be shown because an attractive nuisance indicates no special departure or exception from the ordinary run of negligence cases. Hockinq v. Duluth. Mesabi & Iron Ranqe Rv., 263 Minn. 483, 489, 117 N.W.2d 304, ___ (1962). One element Of negligence is the existence of a duty to the plaintiff. Actionable negligence does not exist unless there has been a failure to discharge a legal duty to the one injured. Id. However, it has been held that there is no duty to fence or supervise a natural watercourse. Kellv v. City of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 950, 252 N.E.2d 636, 305 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1969). The plaintiff must also show that there is a special duty to the deceased or injured, and not just a duty to the general public. See Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 278 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 1979). However, it is settled in this state that: a municipality owes a duty of care toward children using the streets for recreation and play. Harninq v. City of Duluth, 224 Minn. 299, 303, 28 N.W.2d 659, ___ (1947). One court has found, however, no liability for the death of a child who fell into an unfenced drainage ditch, stating that the important factors are the presence of a hidden danger (e.g. a deep hole in a Shallow pool), knowledge of the condit:ion by the municipality and the practicality of remedying the danger. Peacock v. Dexter, 544 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). In Slinker v. Wallner, 258 Minn. 243, 103 N.W.2d 377 (1960), a landowner was held liable for the wrongful death of a trespassing child under a nuisance theory. The court based its decision on the requirements that there must be a foreseeable riSk of injury and an unreasonable danger. These are similar to the requirements that the city must have notice of the dangerous condition and an opportunity to cure before it can be found negligent. Fuller v. Citv of Mankato, 248 Minn. 342, 60 N.W.2d 9 (1956). Other courts have found that the danger of water in a pond 2 ~ -I tJ;