Governmental Immunities: - Minnesota County Attorneys Association

good, that governmental decision will not normally be disturbed. Thus, in Pletan v.
Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1992), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a school
district's decision not to assign personnel to ensure that children board the right bus was
a protected decision. The court noted:
The school district's formulation of a bus transportation policy involved
many factors, including safety, cost, and the educational goal of instilling
a sense of personal responsibility to the students.
Id. at 44. As Pletan, Cairl, and other cases demonstrate, it is always important to be able
to point to a policy consideration that was taken into account by the governmental entity
in order to establish statutory immunity.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the decision not to have a law enforcement
ride the buses implicated fiscal concerns so as to warrant the application of statutory
immunity. Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1996). In
Watson gang members threw a bus passenger out a bus window. The court held that the
level of police presence at any particular location is a classic planning decision protected
by statutory immunity.
The Importance of the Record
The importance of tying the governmental action to policy considerations when one
attempts to establish statutory immunity is demonstrated by comparing Hennes v.
Patterson, 443 N.W.2d 198 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) and Gorecki v. County of Hennepin,
443 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). These cases involved nearly identical accidents
and were handed down at approximately the same time by the Court of Appeals. In each
case, a vehicle left a bridge and fell to the ground below after climbing a ramp of snow
that a snowplow had left along a bridge guardrail. As discussed above, statutory
immunity was found to apply in Hennes, because the record established that the snow
had not been removed because of economic considerations relating to MNDOT’s
allocation of equipment. Hennes, 443 N.W.2d at 203. In Gorecki, by contrast, the reason
that the snow had remained against the bridge rail without being removed was not
sufficiently explained. Further, the explanation that was given was not tied to any
significant policy considerations—such as budgeting—and statutory immunity did not
bar the claim. The lesson to be learned by comparing Hennes and Gorecki is that one
must carefully explain to the court what policies exist and how these policies relate to the
challenged conduct. This can be the difference between success and failure in bringing a
statutory immunity motion.
The importance of a substantial record supporting summary judgment was highlighted
by the Minnesota Supreme Court case of Conlin v. City of Saint Paul, 605 N.W.2d 396
(Minn. 2000). In Conlin Plaintiff turned a corner on to a street that had been recently
sealed and sanded and fell off his motorcycle. The affidavit of an engineer explained that
warning signs were only left up for one day after the sealing and sanding of the roads.
Governmental Immunities Handbook
Kenneth H. Bayliss
Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. © 2010
7