11-10-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

710 Minn.422 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIEShouM, and damaging treat in the yard. Damagta were aateued at 163,000.Chabot brought an action againtt the City of Sauk Rapida to recover theae dam- agea auatained in the flood. .*t trial Or. Chartea Nelaon, a hydrologiat, teatified that he had evaluated the pond. He deter mined that ita capacity waa limited and could overtop the road if 1.3 inchea of rain in a half-hour period. The probability of that amount of rain within a half-hour period waa eatimated at approximately 10% per year. The half-hour period ia critical becauae all rain within the watershed col lects in the holding pond within half an hour. However, the pond had not over flowed in at leaat 66 years. There were no rain measuring devices in the dty so j not known how much rain fell on June 25-26. Tt* United States Weather Service reported heavy rain in the county. All witnesses who testified noted the unusually heavy rain which fell. Al though the city argued that the amount of rain was extraordinary, the jury was in structed that if the rain was "extraordi nary.’’ the dty was not the direct cause of the damages. Although the exact rainfaU in the dty cannot be determined, in the expert hydrologist's opinion, the heaviest ra^all estimated in a half-hour period was 1.4 inches, sufficient to cause the pood to flow over the r>ad. Nelaon indicated that this was probably a so<alled "10-year ram. Although Chabot’s complaint alleged nu merous eounta. the case was submitted to the jury solely on a negligence theory. The trial court instructed the jury that the dty could be found negligent for damages caused by its failure to act after having notice of or knowledge that its drainage system is inadequate and constitutes an unreasonable risk of harm to adjacent prop erty. The jury found the dty negligent and that the d^s negligence waa a direct canse of 153.000 in damages to Chabof s home. The trial eoutc entered judgment, con cluding that the dty's defense of discre tionary immunity was waived by its pro curement of liability insurance under Minn. Sut 9 466.06 (1982). The dty appealed on the issues of liability and damages. Chabot appealed the trial court's calculation of pre-verdict interest The two appeals were consolidated in Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids, 412 N.W.2d 371 (Minn-App.1987). The court of appeals, in a split decision, affirmed the trial court on the issues of liability and damages and reversed its cal culation of interest 'The dty seeks further review only on the issues of liability and immunity. The issues the parties raise on appeal II. III. I. Is the decision of a dty counefl concerning major capital improve ments to its existing drainage sys tem an immune discretionary func tion under Minn.Stat § 466.03, subd. 6 (1986)? If the decision constitutes an im mune discretionary function, did the city waive ita immunity defense by the purchase of liability insur ance under Minn.Stat. } 466.06 (1982)? If immunity has been waived, is a dty liable in tort for its decision not to make major capital improve- menu to its existing drainage sys tem after notice that the system may be inadequate? IV. Did respondent create a jury ques tion on the dty's negligence with out expert testimony on the appro priate standard of adequacy of the system? 11,21 On the first issue, the court of appeals merely concluded that the dl/'s decision not to remedy the pond was "an operational level decision” outside the scope of protected immumty under Minn. Sut 9 466.03, subd. 6 (1986). Chabot, 412 N.W.2d at 376. As we have sUted, the simple mndusory labeling of government conduct as "operational” or "planning” is not helpful Caitl p. Stats, 323 N.WAi 20. 23 n. 2 (Biinu.1982). tn our decision of Nusbaum v. Stats, 422 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 1988), we made clear that certain govern ment conduct is protected under the discre tionary function exception not jimply be-