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
This immunity is most often applied in slip and falls and automobile accidents where the <br />presence of snow and ice was a contributing factor to the accident. Elements necessary for <br />this immunity to apply: 1) claim must be based on snow and ice conditions on public <br />highway or sidewalk; which does not abut the publicly owned building or parking lot. <br />1) What is a snow and ice condition? Issues to consider: <br />• Duration (how long was condition present) <br />• Characteristics of condition (glare ice, black ice, bumps, ridges; <br />• Causation (was the condition a causal factor or did it contribute to the accident <br />and injury). <br />2) "Mere Slipperiness" Doctrine: This is a common law or case law rule whereby the <br />Minnesota appellate courts have held: <br />"A city is not liable for the mere slipperiness resulting from the natural accumulation <br />of ice and snow on streets and sidewalks. However, the rule has its exceptions and does <br />not protect the city in the case where the accumulation of ice and snow is negligently <br />permitted to remain for such a period of time as to cause the formation of `slippery and <br />dangerous ridges, hummocks, depressions, and other irregularities that develop there.' <br />Doyle v. City of Roseville, 524 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1994). <br />3) Condition not caused or created by city <br />• Look to city plowing/snow removal policy /procedure. <br />• What actually caused condition, i.e. drainage issues, freeze /refreeze? <br />■ Was the condition naturally caused or artificially (i.e. awnings, overhangs, <br />drain pipes)? <br />4) Highway /sidewalk must not abut a publicly owned building or parking lot in order to <br />assert the snow /ice immunity. <br />• Check ownership of adjacent properties <br />• Also check if lease /rental of adjacent property <br />b. Statutory Discretionary Immunity Minn. Stat. § 466.03, (Subd. 6) <br />Cities are immune from "any claim based upon the performance or failure to exercise or <br />perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused." This <br />immunity is to protect policy or planning level decisions made by the city, not day -to -day <br />or "operational" decisions. This policy or planning level decision must be based upon <br />social, economic and political factors. The reviewing court analyzes the following factors <br />to determine if immunity applies: <br />• Budget <br />• Personnel <br />■ Safety <br />■ Priority of other projects <br />3 <br />25 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.