11-10-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r CHABOT T. cm* OF SAUK RAPIDScut M 422 S.WJd 701 (Minn. lf«)cause it is idenufied as a planning decision. Minn. 549. 553. 56 N.W. 250, 251 Rather, it is immune because the specific Minn. 711naincr, it is luiniu... ------- ■function involves policy-making that can be made only by the legislative or exwuuve branch of the government. Where the policy-making involves a balancing of social, political, or economic considerations, the conduct is immune as a discretionary func tion. *rhe challenged conduct here was clearly of a policy-making nature. Govern- menul immunity would, therefore, apply under the discretionary function exception. Minn.Sut § 466.03. subd. 6 (1986). (3] However, a city may waive immuni ty by the purchase of liability insurance under Minn.Stat § 466.06 (1982). The cixy had such insurance here. Thus, the sole (1S93)(city liable for negligent maintenance of storm sewer which caused clogging of cul- vert and subsequent f)oodin£]^In short, the cases relleo upon by the court of appeals establish municipal tort liability for either intentional or negligent actions which divert the natural flow of water, causing damage to orooeru- which would not normally be in its path. \ In the present ?ase, however, (ihabot's property was dam aged because it was in the path of the natural flow of water from the holding^ ^ondj Th<iere was no evidence that tne I WWW—-— ^ city's actions in any way changed the di rection of the water’s natural flow, causing^ had such insurance here, y*""*^^* L°mg^d*^lS!S^IoSi issue cUy ‘wL X the natural flow of water onto Chabofs uururu v* paw* —— - gent, tl.at is. under the facts as presented, whether it possessed and breached a duty of care to Chabot We thmk that it did not Merely because an accident occurs and /.umunity is waived does not. in and of itself, establish liability of a municipality. I'he statute merely waives the city s immu nity defense. It does .lot create tort liabili ty where none existed prev-icusly. Plainuff still has the burden to s'now what acaon or inaction const: cuted negligence on the part of the city, entitling the plaintiff to recover. While it i.s true that the city has the duty to exercisv reasonable care to maintain its facihiies in a safe condition, see Cracrafi v. C iy of St Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801. o03 (Minn.1979). that general rule is inap plicable to the facts of this case. [41 None of the cases cited by the ma jority below present the issue raised under these particular facts. In Pettinger v. Kt/- lage of Winnebago. 239 Minn. 156. 162. M N W 2d 325, 329 (1953). for example, the city was found liable for its negligent fail ure to repair and maintain an inadequately designed sewer system. Similwly. m Greenwood ». Evergreen Mines Ca, Minn. 296. 303. 19 N.W.2d 726. 730-31 (1945), the city was held liable for its neglh gent affirmative actions which blocked the natural outlet of a lake, causing overflow and flooding on the plaintiffs Sec aUo Stoehr v. City of St Paul, 54 property, as was established in the preced ing cases, the city ’s liability here appears to have been predicated on its failure to divert or hold back the natural flow of water. That is not the basis of liability which has oeen e'.tablished under Minneso ta tort law. A case which appears to be more similar to the present facts is Roche v. City of Minneapolis, 223 Minn. 359, 27 N.W.2d 295 (1947), not cited by the court below. Roche held that a city is not liable for water damage to private property, despite the inadequacy of its drainage system, when the private property was the natural depos itory of the water discharged. Relying upon esUblished principles of tort law, the court found that, when the city had not unnecessarily discharged water upon pri vate property, it cannot be held liable for fining to prevent a natural result. A city is not required to be an insurer for all water damage from the natural flow of surface water. As the court said in Roche : “The only complaint plaintiffs can make is that the municipality did not do more and wholly relieve the premises of surface and infiltrated water." Id. at 365, 27 N.W.M at 298. The court in Roche found no liabili ty for water damage when the city had not gathered surface waters into a Iwge body anc erst them in large quantities in an area where they did not previously flow. Id.