2006_0424_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 19, 2006 Page 4 230 (Minn. 1988). The Supreme Court has stated that if a governmental decision involves the type of political, social, and economic considerations that lie at the center of a discretionary action, including consideration of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences, it is not the role of the courts to second-guess such policy decisions. Immunity would then attach. See, E.g., Watson by Hanson v. Metro Transit Commission, 553 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1996). It is always a municipality's burden to provide evidence to show that a decision it made was a policy making decision entitled to discretionary immunity. So, for instance, in cases that have been discussed herein, in McEwen v. Burlin�ton Northern R.R. Co., the State was able to show that it had a policy of delaying repainting for rational financial considerations in order to avoid the need for a second repainting. Since these financial considerations are part of "policy making," that decision was found to grant the State immunity. In the Benson case, the State was able to show that it had competing safety concerns in determining exactly how to sign the area in question, and that those were actually considered in making its decisions. In Minder v. Anoka Countv, 677 N.W.2d 479 (Minn. App. 204), the county had a evaluation system to determine the allocation of resources for highway repair and reconstruction projects. The highway was rated in terms of a road's suitability, and then it is looked at in terms of expected volume of traffic, number of complaints, and upcoming total reconstruction projects. All of those factors are then balanced against the amount of money available in concluding what will be spent on maintenance, and on what roadway, in any given year. This was found to give rise to immunity. In discussing immunity cases, it is important to know that there are certain considerations outside of the mere standards set forth in manuals that are not only appropriate for consideration, but, if articulated and proven to have been the factors involved in a decision, insulate the municipality from liability on a negligence claim at some time in the future. There are of course a number of other cases that could be discussed. However, the important theories to keep in mind for liability purposes are set forth above. I hope this assists the Council in making its decision on the proposed ordinance adding Section 601.05 to the Roseville City Code. Respectfully submitted, Scott T. Anderson STA/sld RRM: #90176