 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co.1/11/2005
ges - such as those alleged here - suffered while a construction project is in progress, provided the instrumentality of the injury is an "improvement" within the meaning of the statute. In Fiveland v. Bollig & Sons, Inc., 436 N.W.2d 478, 480-81 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 1989), we held that an excavation as part of the process of building an attached garage and basement constituted an improvement subject to the statutory limitation such that a claim for injuries suffered from a fall into the excavation was subject to the limitation.
But the majority's analysis does not sufficiently distinguish between the proper and negligent placement of the utility-pole anchors, and consequently fails to address a critical issue in determining the applicability of section 541.051: whether the claim alleges a defective or unsafe improvement - and is limited by the statute, see id. - or defective or unsafe construction activities - and is not limited by the statute. See Brandt v. Hallwood Mgmt. Co., 560 N.W.2d 396, 402 (Minn. App. 1997) (holding the two-year statute of limitations did not apply to bar a claim for injuries suffered due to negligence during demolition activities), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997); Wiita v. Potlatch Corp., 492 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Minn. App. 1992) (holding section 541.051 does not apply where the damages are caused by negligent operation of a crane during construction).
Here, CCI struck an underground gas line while installing an anchor for a utility pole. The anchor never got installed and therefore, at the time of the explosion, the anchor was neither "integral to incorporated into the building or structure on the property," and as such was not a permanent improvement within the meaning of section 541.051. Ritter, 483 N.W.2d at 93. "Where an item does not permanently alter real property, it may not constitute an improvement, and [damages] arising from the item are not barred by the statute." Wiita, 492 N.W.2d at 272. Interestingly, the complaint alleged negligent construction activities - both in the placement of the anchor and in CCI's failure to promptly respond to the punctured gas line - rather than a defect in the improvement itself.
The purpose of section 541.051 is to protect parties from liability arising from a statutory "improvement," not to impose a limitations period on negligent construction activities involving items that are not integral to the improvement. Here, the negligent excavation into the gas line was clearly never intended to be a part of the finished improvement. Because I believe the statutory purpose is frustrated by subjecting appellant's claim to the two-year limitation period, I would reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for trial.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|