2012_0312_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Park and Recreational Use Immunity (Subd. 6e) If the property is owned or leased bycity and is intended or designated for use as a “recreational facility”, and the plaintiff is injured while using the facility, the actual use by plaintiff is irrelevant. Examples include: Stiele v. City of Crystal, 646 N.W.2d 251 (Minn. App. 2002). (young child climbing tennis fence in park who fell and was injured). Doyle v. City of Roseville, 524 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1994) (plaintiff slipped and fell while walking in parking lot of public ice rink). Habeck v. Quverson, 699 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. App. 2003) (plaintiff injured while being transported by a hay wagon from parking lot to fairgrounds). Hinnenkamp v. City of Columbia Heights, 2002 WL 233824 (Minn. App. 2002) (plaintiff injured when coffee pot in community center tipped over). Requirements of Trespassers Standard of Care The plaintiff must meet all requirements in order to Something to Think About survive the immunity.This must be a condition created or maintained by cityand it must be likely to cause death or City is immune unless the plaintiff serious bodily harm (i.e., high voltage lines, razor wire, can meet trespasser standard of care bodies of water, excavations, etc.).Also, the city must set forth in Restatement of Torts 2d have actual notice that the condition in question is likely §335. Only in rare circumstances will to cause death or serious bodily harm (i.e., prior accidents, child trespass standard set forth in injuries, or complaints). Upon a brief inspection, the §339 be used. condition must be visible. This doesn’t mean the plaintiff didn’t see the condition, it just confirms it was visible upon a quick inspection. LMCIT has been able to successfully defend these cases at both the trial and appellate court level so that the current law is very favorable toward municipalities. Official Immunity and Vicarious Official Immunity Overview of Official Immunity Doctrine Definitions The common law doctrine of official immunity protects government officials from suit for their discretionary A discretionary act requires the actions taken in the course of their official duties. exercise of individual judgment in Official immunity applies when the official’s conduct carrying out the officials duties. involves the exercise of judgment or discretion, but malicious conduct is not immunized. Official immunity A ministerial act is an absolute, certain, and imperative, involving is designed to protect public officials from the fear of merely execution of a specific duty personal liability that might deter independent action and arising from fixed and designated facts. impair effective performance of their duties. 4