 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simonovic v. 900 Como Lake Limited Partnership1/25/2005
Appellant Mileta Simonovic challenges the district court's determination that his tort action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Minnesota law. Appellant argues that the district court erred in (1) determining that this action arises out of an improvement to real property; (2) determining that this action involves a defective and unsafe condition; and (3) determining that the two-year statute of limitations applies to this failure-to-warn claim. We affirm.
DECISION
I.
In April 2000, appellant fell in the hallway of his apartment building during a carpet-replacement project. Appellant slipped when he stepped onto the bare concrete floor covered by a slippery glue. Three years later, appellant served a complaint, alleging that respondents negligently failed to warn him of the dangerous condition in the hallway. Respondents in this matter are (1) 900 Como Lake and Legacy Management (Como), the building owner and manager; (2) Shaw Contract Carpet (Shaw), hired by Como to replace the carpet in the building's hallway; and (3) Carpet Care Plus (Carpet Care), a subcontractor hired by Shaw to install the carpet.
In motions to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, respondents argued that appellant's claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2002). The district court granted respondents' motions.
Appellant first contends that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute, which provides in relevant part:
(a) Except where fraud is involved, no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property . . . shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, materials, or observation of construction or construction of the improvement to real property or against the owner of the real property more than two years after discovery of the injury[.] . . .
(c) Nothing in this action shall apply to actions for damages resulting from negligence in the maintenance, operation or inspection of the real property improvement against the owner or other person in possession.
Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a), (c).
Here, the district court noted:
The parties do not dispute that if the statute applies, the claims are barred. [Appellant] claims the statute is inapplicable because the glue's only use was to secure the carpet to the floor, and its temporary, exposed condition was not an improvement to real property. [Appellant] does not contend that the carpet itself is not an improvement.
On appeal, appellant argues that even if the glue was an improvement to real property, the replacement of existing carpet with different carpet is not an improvement to real property. We disagree.
The construction of a statute, including a statute of limitations, is a question of law subject to de novo review. Benigni v. County of St. Louis, 585 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn. 1998). The supreme court has held that the following common-sense definition applies to the term improvement to real property as used in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1: "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." Pac. Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Ind., 260 N.W.2d 548, 554 (Minn. 1977) (citing Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Taf
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|