Governmental Immunities: - Minnesota County Attorneys Association

In Steinke, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the failure to place a warning sign in
a particular location was the result of a planning level decision. Steinke v. City of
Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, (Minn. 1994). Anoka County had decided to place signs
warning of deep ditches only along county roads and recognized rights of way, not at
unrecognized rights of way or upon unimproved property. Id. at 176. On statutory
immunity grounds, the court barred the suit brought by a snowmobiler who sued the
County for negligent failure to warn.
The length of the all-red clearance for a traffic signal is a policy decision protected by
statutory immunity. Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1996).
Road Maintenance: In Gutbrod v. County of Hennepin. 529 N.W.2d 720, (Minn. Ct. App.
1995), a county's decision to repair potholes according to a set schedule was held to be
immune. The Court in Gutbrod stated the issue as follows: “To determine whether a
particular act is protected, it is necessary to distinguish planning level decisions from
those at the operational level . . . Planning level decisions are protected, and involve
questions of public policy and the balancing of competing policy objectives . .
.Unprotected, operational level decisions relate ‘to the ordinary day-to-day operations of
the government’ and involve the exercise of scientific or professional judgment." Id. at
723. The Court in Gutbrod went on to analyze the plaintiff's claim that the County
negligently failed to detect and repair a rut in the roadway. The plaintiff lost control of a
motorcycle when a wheel hit the rut. Plaintiff said the County should have repaired the
rut before the accident. The Court held that officials made the decisions concerning the
rut at the planning level because of the balancing of factors, including available funds,
work schedules and known risks. The Court stated: "The county's decision to adhere to
the established repair schedule, however, was made by [the county engineer] after he
considered the risks and costs of changing that schedule. As such, its decision is
protected." Id. at 723. More recently, discretionary immunity was extended to the
decision not to have inspection routes, but to instead rely on county law enforcement and
maintenance personnel to report downed signs. Zaske ex rel. Bratsch v. Lee, 651 N.W.2d
527 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
Statutory immunity can apply in cases of traffic signs that are obscured by brush. In
Riedel v. Goodwin, 574 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) the government entity’s
decision to clear vegetation from high volume roadways before low volume roadways was
protected by statutory immunity. In another case, the township’s decision not to mow
brush adjacent to intersections was a protected planning decision. Schultz v. Frank, No.
C1-00-285 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2000) (unpublished).
The courts have faced several cases involving the application of statutory immunity to
snowplowing. Probably the most important such case is In re: Alexandria Accident of
Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). There the court held that decisions
not to upgrade the lighting system on snowplows, decisions regarding the scheduling of
snowplowing, and decisions related to the training of snowplow operators were all
Governmental Immunities Handbook
Kenneth H. Bayliss
Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. © 2010
11