 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department7/19/2005
After she was bitten by a police dog during the arrest of her husband, respondent Lena M. Hyatt sued appellant City of Anoka and its police department under the "dog bite" statute, Minn. Stat. ยง 347.22 (2002). The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the dog bite statute does not apply to police dogs; (2) it is entitled to either statutory or vicarious official immunity; and (3) its police department should be dismissed because it is not a legal entity subject to suit. On appeal from the district court's denial of the city's motion, this court reversed, based on its determination that application of the dog bite statute to police dogs would lead to an "absurd" result, in part because such an application would conflict with the statute that allows police to use reasonable force. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 680 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. App. 2004), review granted (Minn. July 20, 2004).
On review, the supreme court reversed and remanded the matter to this court to consider the city's alternative claims of immunity and whether the police department is a legal entity subject to suit. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824, 831 (Minn. 2005). Because the police department is not a legal entity subject to suit, it is dismissed. Because the city is entitled to vicarious official immunity, but not to statutory immunity, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
Although the facts are fully set out in the supreme court's opinion, Hyatt, 691 N.W.2d at 825-26, the following facts are pertinent to the issues here.
On May 21, 2002, at approximately 1:30 a.m., police officers arrived at a residence to arrest appellant's husband on outstanding warrants for controlled substance crime, fleeing a police officer, and driving after revocation. The homeowner told the officers that appellant and her husband were living in a two-story barn behind the residence. When the police officers entered the barn through an unlocked door, they heard movement upstairs. One officer called for appellant's husband to come out. After receiving no response, Officer Mark Yates and his police dog, Chips, remained at the bottom of the stairs while two officers proceeded upstairs. Yates heard people yelling and scuffling, and ran upstairs after one of the officers called for his assistance.
When Yates arrived at the top of the stairs, he saw one officer with a bloody face. Yates released Chips either as appellant's husband jumped out a window or immediately after he jumped; appellant was either standing between her husband and Chips, was pushed into the dog's path by her husband, or stepped into the dog's path of her own accord. As Chips took appellant down and apprehended her, Yates attempted to follow her husband out the window but caught himself before he fell two stories to the ground. The other two officers remained still, out of the dog's way, until Yates returned to release him.
ISSUES
1. Should the police department be dismissed because it is not a legal entity subject to suit?
2. Did the district court err in determining that the city is not entitled to statutory immunity?
3. Did the district court err in determining that the city is not entitled to vicarious official immunity?
ANALYSIS
"On an appeal from summary judgment, this Court determines whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law." Watson v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 411 (Minn. 1996). "Summary judgment is appropriate when a governmental entity establishes its actions are immune from liability." Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin, 529 N.W.2d 720, 723 (M
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|