 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monnens v. Speeter12/28/2004
hose actions involving the ordinary, day-to-day operations of the government and do not receive statutory immunity. Id.
Where a government employee simply implements an established policy, the conduct may be protected because the challenge is, in effect, to the policy itself. Watson by Hanson v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 413 (Minn. 1996); Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 234. Even if there is a duty to correct a hazard, the government agency has statutory immunity if its corrective action involves a planning-level decision. Nguyen v. Nguyen, 565 N.W.2d 721, 723-24 (Minn. App. 1997); see also Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 232 (stating, " he question is not whether the State's conduct resulted in a condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm; it is whether the conduct consisted of planning or policymaking decisions (protected) or operational level decisions (unprotected)").
Appellant argues that the decision not to place low-shoulder and curve warning signs on North Arm Drive were not protected by statutory immunity. Citing the section of the MMUTCD applicable to construction zones and the opinion of its expert James Benshoof, appellant argues that the shoulder drop-off was so dangerous as to require a low-shoulder warning sign. Appellant cites Benshoof's opinion to support its position that the curve was so dangerous that it required a reverse-curve warning sign.
The city adopted a community management plan that sets forth a minimal signage policy for rural collector roads. Retaining the pastoral quality of those roads was a city policy objective. The city also adopted the MMUTCD. Under the MMUTCD, use of reverse-curve warning signs is permissive, and low-shoulder warning signs are only required in construction zones. MMUTCD ยงยง 2C.6 and 6F.41.1; see also Introduction to MMUTCD at iv (defining "option" as "a statement of practice that is a permissive condition" for which "the verb may is typically used"). In deciding whether to approve or deny a request for a sign, the city council considers the need for the sign, budget, resources, priority of other capital improvements, citizen requests or complaints, compliance with the community management plan, and public safety factors (e.g., the number of accidents). Adoption of the community management plan and MMUTCD and implementation by the city council involve a balancing of policy considerations, to which statutory immunity applies.
To the extent that appellant is challenging the engineering decision that no signs were needed, that conduct would be protected by official immunity. See Ireland, 552 N.W.2d at 273 (holding official immunity extends vicariously to the county because traffic engineer's decision to place "stop ahead" sign demonstrates exercise of judgment and failing to extend immunity would result in chilling effect on traffic engineer's decision to place "stop ahead" signs).
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|