My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0312
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2012 3:12:47 PM
Creation date
3/22/2012 3:12:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/12/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
What are the issues to consider when dealing with a snow <br /> and ice condition? Definition <br /> • Duration(how long was condition present) The Mere Slipperiness Doctrine is a <br /> • Characteristics of condition(glare ice,black ice, common law or case law rule <br /> bumps,ridges) whereby the Minnesota appellate <br /> • Causation(was the condition a causal factor or did courts have held,"A city is not liable <br /> it contribute to the accident and injury). for the mere slipperiness resulting <br /> from the natural accumulation of <br /> Was the condition caused or created by city? ice and snow on streets and <br /> • Look to city plowing/snow removal sidewalks. However,the rule has its <br /> policy/procedure. exceptions and does not protect the <br /> • What actually caused condition, i.e. drainage issues, city in the case where the <br /> freeze/refreeze? accumulation of ice and snow is <br /> • Was the condition naturally caused or artificially negligently permitted to remain for <br /> (i.e. awnings,overhangs, drain pipes)? such a period of time as to cause <br /> the formation of'slippery and <br /> Remember: The highway/sidewalk cannot abut a publicly dangerous ridges, hummocks, <br /> owned building or parking lot in order to assert the depressions,and other irregularities <br /> snow/ice immunity. Also,check the ownership of adjacent that develop there." <br /> properties. Refer to Doyle v.City of Roseville, <br /> 524 N.W.2d 461(Minn. 1994). <br /> Statutory Discretionary Immunity Minn. Stat. §466.03, <br /> (Subd. 6) <br /> Cities are immune from"any claim based upon the performance or failure to exercise or perform a <br /> discretionary function or duty,whether or not the discretion is abused."This immunity is to protect <br /> policy or planning level decisions made by the city,not day-to-day or"operational"decisions. This <br /> policy or planning level decision must be based upon social, economic and political factors. The <br /> reviewing court analyzes the following factors to determine if immunity applies: <br /> lies: <br /> • Budget <br /> • Personnel <br /> • Safety Something to Think About <br /> • Priority of other projects Self-serving conclusory affidavits <br /> from city employees have been <br /> These factors are often present in policies(i.e., snow rejected by the Minnesota appellate <br /> plowing, sidewalk, sewer inspection or maintenance),city courts.See Conlin v.City of St. Paul, <br /> council or planning minutes,memorandums, contracts that 1999 WL 2096045(Minn.App. 1999). <br /> the city has in its records. Use model policies available <br /> from LMCIT for your client cities. <br /> Generally,the actual implementation of the policy/plan may be deemed"operational"and may not <br /> be protected by immunity. However, if the claim involves an"attack"upon the policy/plan itself, <br /> the Minnesota appellate courts have refused to separate or set forth a"bright line rule"and have <br /> afforded statutory immunity for the enactment as well as the implementation of the policy/plan. <br /> See,Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719(Minn. 1996). <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.