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