 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hinnenkamp v. City of Columbia Heights2/12/2002
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment on her personal-injury claim, which arose from a kitchen accident at a city-owned community center. Appellant contends that, because she was involved in a nonrecreational activity in a multipurpose building, recreational-use immunity does not apply, and even if it does, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the trespasser exception applies. Because we conclude it was not error for the district court to find that recreational-use immunity applies, and because there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the trespasser exception applies, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Theresa Hinnenkamp was injured while doing catering work at Muryzn Hall, a community center owned by the City of Columbia Heights and operated by its parks department. The center is used for recreational, social, and community activities.
Hinnenkamp worked for Ideal Catering, which was hired to cater a wedding reception at the community center; during the reception Hinnenkamp was making mashed potatoes in the kitchen, using a commercial mixer owned by the city. The mixer was on a wheeled cart, and Hinnenkamp moved the cart close to a stove and attempted to scoop water from a kettle on the stove into the mixer. The mixer tipped and fell forward, striking the stove and spilling scalding liquids that seriously burned Hinnenkamp.
Hinnenkamp sued the city, and the district court granted summary judgment for the city on the ground of recreational-use immunity. This appeal followed.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, this court asks (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the district court erred in its application of the law. See State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). No genuine issue of material fact exists when "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
The availability of recreational-use immunity is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. See Lundstrom v. City of Apple Valley, 587 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Minn. App. 1998). Generally, municipalities are liable for their torts. See Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (2000). But municipalities are immune from
ny claim based upon the * * * operation * * * of any property owned * * * by the municipality that is intended or permitted to be used as a park, as an open area for recreational purposes, or for the provision of recreational services * * * if the claim arises from a loss incurred by a user of park and recreation property or services. Nothing in this subdivision limits the liability of a municipality for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person. Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6(e) (2000) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, if the municipality's property is used to provide "recreational services," the municipality is entitled to recreational-use immunity from a claim for a loss incurred by a user of the property unless the municipality's conduct would entitle a trespasser to recover damages against a private person. See Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Auth., 541 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn. App. 1995).
I.
The district court found that, under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6(e), the recreational-use immunity statute, the city was immune from liability. Hinnenkamp argues that her injury arose out of a nonrecreational activity in a multipurpose building and that the recreational-use immunity statute therefore does not apply. But an analysis of whe
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.
|
|