My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_0312_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_0312_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2012 3:27:33 PM
Creation date
3/8/2012 4:03:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Appeal by Plaintiffs <br />Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s apportionment, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the district <br />court’s decision. In their holding, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the “liability cap on <br />municipal liability is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of insuring fiscal <br />stability to meet and carry out the manifold responsibilities of government.” Thus, the tort cap is <br />constitutional. <br />The St. Paul Gas Explosion Case (In Re: Maria Avenue Natural Gas Explosion, 1999 WL <br />417345)(Minn. App. 1999) <br />On July 22, 1993,a City of St. Paul public works crew was working at the corner of Third and <br />Maria Avenue and struck a gas line. The city notified the gas company and began evacuating <br />residents. Approximately 20 minutes later, an explosion occurred and three people were killed and <br />several others were seriously injured. Additionally, several buildings were destroyed. <br />ThePlaintiff sued the city and argued that the statutory tort caps were unconstitutional. The city <br />moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the <br />city. The court held that the application of the “rational basis” test to the tort liability limits has a <br />legitimate purpose of maintaining a municipality’s fiscal integrity and that the legislature could <br />have reasonably believed that the enactment of the liability caps would promote this legitimate <br />purpose. The court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the statutory tort limits were <br />unconstitutional because the legislature had prospectively raised the caps during the course of the <br />litigation. The court held that,“By simply adjusting the tort limits, the legislature has continued to <br />examine the opposing policies of making victims of municipal torts whole while balancing the <br />municipal fiscal integrity.” <br />Conclusion <br />Your League Resource <br />Notwithstanding these unique defenses (immunities) and <br /> <br />Questions regarding this <br />tort damage caps available to cities, every city should <br />information? Contact Brian Gaviglio, <br />attempt to actively prevent and limit potential lawsuits by <br />Litigation Management Attorney at <br />utilizing losscontrol and risk management methods, and <br />(651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122. <br />should vigorously investigate and be prepared to defend <br />these cases when they arise. <br />Brian Gaviglio 03/10 <br />9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.