 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dewitt v. Metropolitan Council8/6/2002
Respondent Mary W. DeWitt suffered a personal injury when a bus in which she was riding struck a depression in the roadway near the intersection of Sixth Street and Second Avenue in downtown Minneapolis. DeWitt sued the City of Minneapolis for her injuries on the grounds that the city negligently failed to implement established policies to inspect and maintain the roadway and to warn drivers about the roadway's defect. The city moved for summary judgment on the grounds that official and statutory immunity barred DeWitt's suit because once the city received notice of the defect, the city's actions regarding how to respond to that notice were discretionary. The district court denied that motion, and the city timely appealed. We affirm.
DECISION
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted).
Although an order denying summary judgment is usually not appealable, an order denying summary judgment may be appealed where, as here, a claim of immunity has been asserted. City of Woodbury v. Woodbury Township Co., 254 N.W.2d 385, 387 n.3 (Minn. 1977); McNamara v. McLean, 531 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn. App. 1995).
Our review of a denial of summary judgment based on a claim of immunity focuses on the legal issue of immunity and presumes [that] the facts alleged by the nonmoving party are true. Burns v. State, 570 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn. App. 1997) (citing Waste Recovery Co-op of Minn. v. County of Hennepin, 517 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. 1994)).
A district court's decision regarding whether to grant immunity is a legal question, which this court reviews de novo. Christopherson v. City of Albert Lea, 623 N.W.2d 272, 275 (Minn. App. 2001).
The common law doctrine of official immunity provides that a public official who is charged by law with duties calling for the exercise of judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless the official is guilty of a willful or malicious act. Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 1998) (citation omitted).
Official immunity exists "to protect public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair effective performance of their duties." S.L.D. v. Kranz, 498 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. App. 1993) (quoting Elwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. 1988)) (citation omitted).
The doctrine of vicarious official immunity generally entitles a government employer to immunity from suit when official immunity applies to the actions of its employee, regardless of whether the suit names the employee as a defendant. Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316-17. Therefore, a city employee's official immunity protects the city from standing trial for claims based on the performance of duties that require a city employee to exercise judgment or discretion. See id.
But official immunity does not extend to ministerial tasks. Id. at 315. "A discretionary act is one which requires a balancing of complex and competing factors at the planning, rather than operational, state of development," and involves "the exercise of individual judgment in carrying out the official's duties." Ostendorf v. Kenyon, 347 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn. App. 1984) (citations omitted); Kari v. City of Maplewood, 582 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn. 1998) (citation omitted). In contrast, a ministerial duty is "absolute, certain, and imper
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|