Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Legal Claims: Plaintiff sued the city and argued that the statutory tort caps were <br />unconstitutional. The city moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district <br />court. <br />Appeal and Decision: The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant <br />of summary judgment to the city. The court held that the application of the "rational basis" <br />test to the tort liability limits has a legitimate purpose of maintaining a municipality's fiscal <br />integrity and that the legislature could have reasonably believed that the enactment of the <br />liability caps would promote this legitimate purpose. The court also rejected Plaintiff s <br />argument that the statutory tort limits were unconstitutional because the legislature had <br />prospectively raised the caps during the course of the litigation. The court held that "by <br />simply adjusting the tort limits, the legislature has continued to examine the opposing <br />policies of making victims of municipal torts whole while balancing the municipal fiscal <br />integrity. <br />Conclusion <br />Notwithstanding these unique defenses (immunities) and tort damage caps available to cities, <br />every city should attempt to actively prevent and limit potential lawsuits by utilizing loss control <br />and risk management methods, and should vigorously investigate and be prepared to defend these <br />cases when they arise. <br />Lastly, cities should be aware effective Jan. 1, 2008, the statutory liability limits will increase to <br />$400,000 per claimant and $1.2 million per occurrence. Those limits will increase again on July 1, <br />2009, to $500,000 per claimant and $1.5 million per occurrence. <br />Brian Gaviglio 12/07 <br />