 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hancock v. Independent School District No. 28112/3/2002
custodians on an ad hoc, as-needed basis. The deposition testimony of Superintendent Mack and Nolte support this assessment. Both testified that the decision to replace the glass was a custodial one. Superintendent Mack testified, "the highest level of that decision to replace broken glass or replace that, would be at the building custodial level." Moreover, Nolte testified that he kept pre-cut glass in stock and possessed the expertise to install the door panels himself. With respect to the broken glass at issue in this case, Nolte replaced it immediately and testified that he needed no special authorization to do so. He further testified that he was surprised that the glass door that injured Hancock still had non-safety glass given that the school had replacement "safety" glass on site, and had been replacing the non-safety glass over the course of normal, on-going maintenance. Importantly, the fact that there was an ample supply of safety glass on-site contradicts Superintendent Mack's affidavit statement that the school district's glass-replacement policy was driven by budgetary constraints.
The lack of evidence concerning the development of school district's glass-replacement policy and Superintendent Mack's and Nolte's deposition testimony that seem to contradict such a policy existed, demonstrate that there is a material fact issue concerning the existence and nature of school district's glass-replacement policy. Therefore, the district court's denial of summary judgment was appropriate.
Finally, school district argues that even though it cannot present written documentation of its glass-replacement policy, such as transcribed minutes from a school board meeting or an actual policy, such evidence is unnecessary because it can demonstrate "the actual performance of this policy, and the affirmation of this policy by performance." But the issue here is whether there ever was such a policy. Again, given the scant and conflicting evidence as to the existence of a policy, the district court properly denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. Even if school district could clearly demonstrate it had a glass-replacement policy, the implementation of established policy is generally not immune from liability. Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 348. "It is, however, the evaluation and weighing of social, political, and economic considerations underlying public policy decisions, not the application of scientific and technical skills in carrying out established policy, which invokes the discretionary function exception affording governmental immunity." Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Minn. 1988) (citation omitted).
Because school district failed to establish that its conduct was entitled to discretionary immunity, the district court properly denied summary judgment.
Affirmed.
|