My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
07/14/2008 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2008
>
07/14/2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2014 10:52:12 AM
Creation date
5/9/2014 2:13:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
07/14/2008
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />• <br />• <br />that constitutes a breach of duty of care, there is no negligent claim available to the plaintiff <br />against the city. Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1979). This <br />doctrine has been applied to such activities as fire fighting and building inspections. <br />2. Breach of Duty Of Care <br />In order to show a breach of duty, one must show that the city had Notice. <br />• Actual Notice: city is aware of dangerous or defective condition through complaints, area <br />recommended for repair or replacement, other accidents, injuries, or city created condition. <br />• Constructive Notice: is established through evidence that the dangerous or defective <br />condition was present for such a period of time that it constitutes notice. Constructive <br />notice exists if it can be proven that if the city was exercising reasonable care, it should <br />have known of the dangerous condition. <br />3. Proximate Cause <br />Was the city's negligence the cause or substantial factor in the Plaintiff's injuries or damages? <br />4. Damage or Injury <br />To establish the damage element, plaintiff must prove actual loss or injury. Plaintiff cannot <br />simply speculate or surmise as to his/her loss or injury. <br />Municipal Immunities <br />Cities have a variety of statutory immunities available to them under the Municipal Tort Claims <br />Act, Minn. Stat. §466.01 -15. Cities also have common law official and vicarious official immunity <br />available to them as a bar to suit. These immunities bar a lawsuit, even if city is potentially <br />negligent. <br />1. Statutory Immunities <br />The statutory immunities are set forth within the Municipal Tort Claims Act, at Minn. Stat. <br />§466.03. The most common statutory immunities are: <br />a. Snow and Ice Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 4 <br />b. Statutory Discretionary Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 6 <br />c. Parks and Recreation Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 6e <br />d. Municipal Authorizations Standard Immunity (Permit), Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 10 <br />e. Road or Highway Right -of -Way Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 22 <br />a. Snow and Ice Immunity, Minn. Stat. §466.03, Subd. 4 <br />2 <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.