2006_0424_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 19,2006 Page 3 the road in question. In that case, testimony was that a partially obstructed stop sign, whether the obstruction was created by vegetation or by another road sign, would not conform to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or the Minnesota Traffic Engineering Manual. Once again, the standard of care being asserted is contained in manuals specifying traffic engineering standards and standards on traffic control devices. In this case too, the issue of negligence was not ultimately reached in the reported decision because of the application of immunity. Under Minn. Stat. � 196.06, which deals with signs and which gives local authorities the jurisdiction for the placing and maintenance of such traffic control devices as they deem necessary, the Commissioner of MnDOT was required to adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices for use upon roadways in the state. Id. Subd. 1. This is the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). In terms of any liability concerns that the City Attorney may have, it stems from potential deviations from the standards set forth in traffic engineering manuals and the MMUTCD that may occur. If there is a claim relating to the particular traffic control device, deviations from established standards for traffic control devices that are not those which give rise to immunity claims could provide the basis for an argument that the standard of care has been breached, and thus for imposing liability upon the City. By making that statement I am not stating that deviations will occur, I am merely stating that the possibility of them does give rise to liability considerations that as a lawyer I would want the Council to consider in making any decision. For instance, deviating from the standard upon the basis of neighborhood opposition, or the testimony of persons who may opine that such traffic control devices are unnecessary, buy who do not have the training, background and experience to actually have the foundation for making such statements, could give rise to potential liability situations. That is not to say that deviations from the standard set forth in the MMUTCD or the Traffic Engineer's Manual are in all circuinstances indefensible or unnecessary. As noted earlier herein, many, if not most of these cases, turn on immunity issues. The immunity in question is that which is termed discretionary immunity. Discretionary immunity, as well as other types of immunity that are available to governmental entities, are the frequent means upon which cases are decided. Immunity in this sense is an immunity from having to stand trial and bear the cost and expense of litigation. It does not mean that there may not be a prima facie case of negligence. What it means is, more in classic terms of affirmative defenses used in pleading, that irrespective of any negligence immunity prohibits the lawsuit from moving forward. There is a huge body of law governing discretionary immunity and other types of immunity within the State of Minnesota. Simply stated, discretionary immunity involves those decisions that involve questions of public policy. That is, the evaluation of factors such as the financial, political, economic and social effects of a given plan, action or policy. See�e•�•, Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 1994); Holmc�uist v. State, 425 N.W.2d