Laserfiche WebLink
Public Duty Doctrine <br />The public duty doctrine precludes a negligence claim against a city. It states that the city does not <br />owe a duty to an individual citizen when performing certainmunicipal functions, but to the public <br />as a whole. Under this doctrine, even if the city may have done something that constitutes a breach <br />of duty of care, there is no negligent claim available to the plaintiff against the city. Cracraft v. <br />City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1979). This doctrine has been applied to such <br />activities as fire fighting and building inspections. <br />Breach of Duty of Care <br />In order to show a breach of duty, one must show that <br />Definitions <br />notice. <br />the city had <br />Actual Notice is when a city is <br />aware of dangerous or defective <br />Proximate Cause <br />conditions through complaints; the <br />Was the city’s negligence the cause or substantial factor <br />area has been recommended for <br />in the Plaintiff’s injuries or damages? <br />repair or replacement; or other <br />accidents, injuries, or preexisting <br />Damage or Injury <br />city created conditions. <br />To establish the damage element, plaintiff must prove <br />actual loss or injury. Plaintiff cannot simply speculate <br />Constructive Notice is established <br />or surmise as to his/her loss or injury. <br />through evidence that the <br />dangerous or defective condition <br />Municipal Immunities <br />was present for such a period of <br />time that it constitutes notice. This <br />Cities have a variety of statutory immunities available <br />exists if it can be proven that if the <br />to them under the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. <br />city was exercising reasonable care, <br />Stat. §466.01-15. Cities also have common law official <br />it should have known of the <br />and vicarious official immunity available to them as a <br />dangerous condition. <br />bar to suit. These immunities bar a lawsuit, even if city <br />is potentially negligent. <br />Statutory Immunities <br />The statutory immunities are set forth within the Municipal Tort Claims Act, at Minn. Stat. <br />§466.03. The most common statutory immunities are: <br />Snow and Ice Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 4 <br />Statutory Discretionary Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 6 <br />Parks and Recreation Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 6e <br />Municipal Authorizations Standard Immunity (Permit), Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 10 <br />Road or Highway Right-of-Way Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 22 <br />Snow and Ice Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 4 <br />This immunity is most often applied in slip and falls and automobile accidents where the presence <br />of snow and ice was a contributing factor to the accident. Theclaim must be based on snow and <br />ice conditionsonpublic highway or sidewalk,which does notabut the publicly owned building or <br />parking lot is necessary for this immunity to apply. <br />2 <br /> <br />