2012_0312_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

What are the issues to consider when dealing with a snow Definition and ice condition? Duration (how long was condition present) The Mere Slipperiness Doctrine is a Characteristics of condition (glare ice, black ice, common law or case law rule bumps, ridges) whereby the Minnesota appellate Causation (was the condition a causal factor or did courts have held, A city is not liable it contribute to the accident and injury). for the mere slipperiness resulting from the natural accumulation of Was the condition caused or created by city? ice and snow on streets and Look to city plowing/snow removal sidewalks. However, the rule has its policy/procedure. exceptions and does not protect the city in the case where the What actually caused condition, i.e. drainage issues, accumulation of ice and snow is freeze/refreeze? negligently permitted to remain for Was the condition naturally caused or artificially such a period of time as to cause (i.e. awnings, overhangs, drain pipes)? the formation of slippery and dangerous ridges, hummocks, Remember: The highway/sidewalkcannotabut a publicly depressions, and other irregularities owned building or parking lot in order to assert the that develop there. snow/ice immunity.Also, check the ownership of adjacent Refer to Doyle v. City of Roseville, properties. 524 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1994). Statutory Discretionary Immunity Minn. Stat.§ 466.03, (Subd. 6) Cities are immune from “any claim based upon the performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” This immunity is to protect policy or planning level decisions made by the city, not day-to-day or “operational” decisions. This policy or planning level decision must be based upon social, economic and political factors. The reviewing court analyzes the following factors to determine if immunity applies: Budget Personnel Something to Think About Safety Priority of other projects Self-serving conclusory affidavits from city employees have been These factors are often present in policies (i.e., snow rejected by the Minnesota appellate plowing, sidewalk, sewer inspection or maintenance), city courts. See Conlin v. City of St. Paul, council or planning minutes, memorandums, contracts that 1999 WL 2096045 (Minn. App. 1999). the city has in its records. Use model policies available from LMCIT for your client cities. Generally, the actual implementation of the policy/plan may be deemed “operational” and may not be protected by immunity. However, if the claim involves an “attack” upon the policy/plan itself, the Minnesota appellate courts have refused to separate or set forth a “bright line rule” and have afforded statutory immunity for the enactment as well as the implementation of the policy/plan. See,Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1996). 3