Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1043968.html
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 14:08:17
Document Index: 246179777

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2002466', '§\u2002466', '§\u2002466', '§\u2002466', '§\u2002466', '§\u2002466']

CHRISTOPHERSON v. CITY OF ALBERT LEA | FindLaw
CHRISTOPHERSON v. CITY OF ALBERT LEA
Mark R. CHRISTOPHERSON, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF ALBERT LEA, Appellant.
No. C4-00-1561.
Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, HALBROOKS, Judge, and FOLEY, Judge.* Edward E. Beckmann, Miller & Kellermeier, P.A., Edina, MN, for respondents. Mary D. Tietjen, Carla J. Heyl, League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
Respondents Mark R. and Karrie K. Christopherson sued appellant city Albert Lea, alleging the city was liable on several theories for damage to their home resulting from sewer backup. The city brought a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted a portion of the motion, dismissing respondents' theories of breach of contract and a taking of property without just compensation. But the district court denied the portion of the city's motion seeking an immunity-based summary judgment under Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (2000). The city appeals, alleging that the conduct at issue-the city's management of its sewer system-involves planning-level decisions that entitle it to immunity. Because we conclude that the city's choice of maintaining its systems is a policy-making decision, the city is entitled to statutory immunity. We reverse.
The city system has two separate types of sewers-storm and sanitary. But sanitary sewers are designed to handle a certain amount of inevitable infiltration or inflow (I/I) of storm water. The city has 19 sanitary-sewer-lift stations and 4 storm-sewer-lift stations to reduce water levels in the city's approximately 100 miles of sanitary-sewer lines. When sewage reaches a certain level, one of the lift station's two pumps begins pumping water out of the sewer. Both pumps may be activated if the sewage reaches too high a level. Lift stations are inspected every day and repaired or replaced as necessary. The city attempts to upgrade one lift station each year with new pumps. Respondents' neighborhood is serviced by the lift station at 6th Street and St. John Avenue (“the 6th Street station”). The 6th Street station was built in 1930 and had its pumps replaced in January 1971. The policy for annual maintenance and inspection of the sanitary sewer system includes jetting approximately one-fourth of the system and cleaning 35 locations. The portion of the sewer that serves respondents' residence is one of seven locations that is cleaned twice a year.
The next morning, respondents discovered one and one-half feet of raw sewage in their basement. The cost of cleaning and repairing respondents' basement and compensating their property loss was $17,745.82. Respondents sued the city, alleging four causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The city moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was entitled to statutory discretionary immunity under Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (2000).
We review an order denying summary judgment by determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 218-19 (Minn.1998). Whether immunity applies is a legal question, which is reviewed de novo. Id. at 219. The party asserting a defense of immunity has the burden of proof. Gerber v. Neveaux, 578 N.W.2d 399, 402 (Minn.App.1998), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
The common law doctrine of government immunity for municipalities was essentially abolished in Spanel v. Mounds View Sch. Dist. No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 118 N.W.2d 795 (1962). Today, such immunity exists as a matter of legislative grace. See Minn.Stat. ch. 466 (2000). The statute immunizes municipalities against certain claims, including “[a]ny claim based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6. Further, the statute places limitations on the extent of a municipality's liability. Minn.Stat. §§ 466.04 (establishing maximum limits of liability), 466.06 (procuring liability insurance waives a municipality's liability only to the extent of coverage).
Such immunity, commonly referred to as statutory or discretionary immunity, prevents judicial review of executive and legislative policy-making decisions. Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Minn.1996). Although nearly all governmental acts require some discretion, the statute only protects acts that require the balancing of policy objectives such as social, economic, and political factors. Christensen v. Mower County, 587 N.W.2d 305, 307 (Minn.App.1998). Courts have interpreted the statute granting immunity narrowly. Conlin v. City of St. Paul, 605 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn.2000).
Determining whether a municipality is entitled to immunity involves a two-step test. Angell v. Hennepin County Reg'l Rail Auth., 578 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1998). The first step is to ascertain exactly what governmental conduct is being challenged, and the second step is whether the conduct is operational or policy-making. Id. at 346-47. Policy-making decisions
Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn.1988). Distinguishing between policy-making activities and operational activities involves gray areas, but “the underlying consideration is whether the conduct involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy.” Angell, 578 N.W.2d at 347 (quotations omitted).
Here, the city contends that the district court erred in the initial step of the analysis because it failed to identify the precise conduct being challenged. The district court stated that it agreed with respondents that “[i]t is not a policy decision to not know how much sewage is flowing through” the city sewage system. The city argues that the court should have found that its conduct was policy-making because it involved long-term decisions regarding its budget and sewer maintenance, repair, and inspections. Therefore, the city argues Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6, shields it from the consequences arising from those decisions.
We agree with the city and conclude that the conduct at issue here is the manner in which the city maintained its sewer system. As the Minnesota Supreme Court held, a “city's decision not to remedy” a defect in its sewer system “was clearly of a policy-making nature.” Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids, 422 N.W.2d 708, 710-11 (Minn.1988). Although Chabot involved a defective storm sewer system rather than a sanitary sewer system, Chabot closely parallels this case in that in both cases the city decided not to make immediate capital improvements to its sewer systems because of budgetary constraints, and when hit by an extraordinary storm, the city's sewage system was unable to cope with the excess drainage. Property damage resulted to residents in “the lowest points in the landscape.” Id. at 709.
Respondents believe the 1975 report and other discussions about the cost of capital improvements “are irrelevant to this claim because they discuss the entirety of the storm water system and sanitary sewer system.” We disagree. We do not believe that it is necessary for the city to introduce some document that specifically addresses the 6th Street station or the Virginia Place neighborhood to be entitled to immunity. The conduct at issue here is the city's decisions concerning a problem with its infiltration system. Although the consequences of infiltration may have impacted respondents' low-lying neighborhood more severely than other areas, the problem affected the entire city. Therefore, the report and other documents are relevant because they suggest that the city was aware of the infiltration problems with the system and attempted to address them in a financially feasible way.
Respondents correctly note that there is a long line of cases establishing that a municipality “is liable for damages resulting from its failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to keep [its sewer] in repair and free from obstructions.” Jindra v. City of St. Anthony, 533 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn.App.1995) (quotations omitted). But none of these cases addresses the issue of statutory immunity.
Further, if the relevant conduct at issue involves a combination of policy-making and operational decisions, then the city is still entitled to immunity. Fisher v. County of Rock, 596 N.W.2d 646, 652 (Minn.1999) (“[I]f in addition to professional or scientific judgment, policy considerations played a part in making a decision, then planning level conduct is involved and statutory immunity applies.” (citation omitted)). Thus, even if city employees were negligent in performing operational duties, it was due in part to the city's funding decisions not to purchase alarms and flow or time meters.
The city demonstrated that its conduct involved policy-making when it decided how to maintain its sewage system. We find that it is entitled to immunity under Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (2000), from the consequences of this decision and, therefore, we reverse the district court's decision.