Opinion ID: 1345763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Immunity: the statutory exception to governmental tort liability for a discretionary function must be narrowly construed.

Text: Although our decisions under the State Tort Claims Act (Minn.Stat. ch. 3) and the Municipal Tort Claims Act (Minn.Stat. ch. 466) frequently refer to statutory immunity, this is perhaps a misnomer because the primary effect of those acts is to establish governmental liability for the torts of its employees and any immunity that is extended by those acts is an exception to that liability. Minn.Stat. §§ 3.736 and 466.02 (2004). Both acts create an exception to liability for the discretionary acts of employees, generally referred to as the discretionary function exception. Minn. Stat. §§ 3.736, subd. 3(b), and 466.03, subd. 6 (2004); Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn.1988). Because of the risk that the discretionary function exception could swallow the general rule of tort liability, we have consistently interpreted that exception narrowly. Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 232 (citing Cairl v. State, 323 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn.1982), and Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth, 422 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.1988)). Moreover, I would suggest that the discretionary function exception should be viewed even more narrowly in a case where, as here, the governmental entity has created a dangerous condition on its roads that gives rise to a duty to warn. A brief historical review of governmental tort immunity, specifically in the context of the government's responsibility to care for the safety of travelers on its roads, will reinforce this view.
Under common law governmental tort immunity, prior to its abolition, the paradigm was reversedimmunity was the general rule and liability was the exception. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 718 (stating that the general rule was immunity with limited exceptions of liability); Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, 296 N.W.2d 383, 385-86 (Minn.1980). But, even under that regimen, our cases recognized that a county or municipality, having responsibility for a road, had a common law duty to maintain that road in a reasonably safe condition and could be held liable, as an exception to immunity, for its failure to do so upon notice of a dangerous condition. See, e.g., Anderson, 296 N.W.2d at 385-86 (describing the exception to common law governmental tort immunity for negligence in the maintenance and repair of roads under the government's control). [2] That duty included the exercise of reasonable care to warn travelers of a dangerous condition. See, e.g., Mix v. City of Minneapolis, 219 Minn. 389, 395, 18 N.W.2d 130, 134 (1945) (stating that if, by reason of peculiar facts or circumstances, a pitfall, trap, or snare dangerous to a traveler proceeding with reasonable care is created in respect to a street, a municipality owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn or otherwise protect such a traveler for resulting danger.) Although the duty to repair or warn generally required proof that the municipality had actual knowledge or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, it was uniformly recognized that such proof was satisfied where an act of the municipality's employee created the dangerous condition. See, e.g., Larson v. Township of New Haven, Olmsted County, 282 Minn. 447, 454, 165 N.W.2d 543, 547 (1969) (stating that the general rule, that the municipality's duty to warn arises only if the municipality has actual knowledge or constructive notice of dangerous conditions, is inapplicable if the defect    is one which [the municipality] created.). Thus, even where immunity was the rule and liability the exception, this court ultimately held a governmental body liable for the failure to warn or remedy a dangerous condition that its employees created on one of its roads. Intuitively, one would expect that the liability of a governmental body that existed under common law governmental immunity would not be reduced by the abolition of that immunity and the substitution of statutory governmental tort liability. This was precisely the reaction of the court of appeals when it first addressed the discretionary function exception to state and municipal tort liability in the context of dangerous conditions on a road.
In the first cases that followed the statutory establishment of governmental tort liability, the court of appeals concluded that the duty of the state or local government to remedy or warn of dangerous conditions on its roads could not be eliminated by the statutory discretionary function exception. Thus, in Holmquist v. State, 409 N.W.2d 243, 247-48 (Minn.App. 1987), rev'd, 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. 1988), the court of appeals determined that the abrupt narrowing of the width of the shoulder on a road constituted a pitfall, trap, or snare, giving rise to a duty to warn, and that the discretionary function exception under the State Tort Claims Act was not applicable because the state had created this dangerous condition. Likewise in Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth , the court of appeals determined that the discretionary function exception to state liability was not applicable where the state created a dangerous condition on its roads that gave rise to a duty to warn. [3] 411 N.W.2d 917, 922-23 (Minn.App.1987), aff'd on other grounds, 422 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Minn.1988). If those cases were applicable here, we would hold that the decision to grade against traffic created a dangerous condition on the county's roads that gave rise to a duty to warn, making the discretionary function exception inapplicable. The rationale of those court of appeals decisions was the same as the public policy considerations that led us to abolish governmental immunity in the first place. See, e.g., Nieting, 235 N.W.2d at 601 (stating that immunity was an exception to the fundamental concept of tort law that liability follows tortiuous conduct and that individuals and corporations are responsible for the acts of their employees acting in the course of their employment.); Spanel v. Mounds View Sch. Dist. No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 285, 118 N.W.2d 795, 799 (1962) (stating that immunity was unfair to injured individuals in the era of expanding governmental services and is neither just nor reasonable). A governmental body that is charged with responsibility for the safety of the roads should obviously be discouraged from creating dangerous conditions on those roads. Further, a governmental body whose conduct creates a common law duty to warn its citizens about a dangerous condition should not be allowed to unilaterally immunize itself from liability by simply engaging in the process of weighing the risk of harm to the public against some competing policy concerns of the government, especially purely economic concerns. And, because the government's decision to forgo certain expenditures will provide benefits to all taxpayers, it is not fair to require a single innocent victim to bear all of the cost of the adverse consequences of that decision. Moreover, if a governmental entity is immune, and therefore has no risk of loss for negligent acts, then it has nothing to balance against forgoing the expenditure. Carried to the extreme, immunity could encourage the government to abdicate many of its most important responsibilities by making policy decisions to save the expenses necessary to execute them. Could a county, for example, allow travelers to continue to use an unsafe bridge, without warning, because it weighed the safety of the travelers against budget constraints that made it financially difficult to make the bridge safe? One would hope not, but the extension of the discretionary function exception to the deliberate abdication of governmental responsibilities, purely for cost-saving reasons, could produce precisely that extreme result. In fact, it is anomalous that a governmental body may obtain immunity from liability under the discretionary function exception by engaging in the very conduct that would increase the culpability of a private party. For example, products liability cases routinely hold that a product manufacturer who knows of a dangerous condition but defers correction by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis, balancing human lives against corporate profits, has demonstrated such callous indifference to public safety as to be subject to punitive damages. See, e.g., Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348, 384 (1981) (There was evidence that Ford could have corrected the hazardous design defects at minimal cost but decided to defer correction of the shortcomings by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits. Ford's institutional mentality was shown to be one of callous indifference to public safety.); Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826, 835-36 (Minn.1988) (concluding that Goodyear's inadequate distribution of warnings about the danger of exploding rims, based on a corporate policy to restrict advertising dollars for projects that are not promoting product sales, was willful indifference to the safety of others.); Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 297 N.W.2d 727 (Minn.1980) (upholding a punitive damages award against a manufacturer who continued, for profit reasons, to supply flammable nightwear when nonflammable material was available). We should expect our government to pay an even higher regard for the safety of its citizens. Yet the discretionary function exception, broadly applied, would make the government immune from liability precisely because it has engaged in a cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against [budget constraints]. [4] For all of these reasons, if the issue were being presented to us for the first time, I would be inclined to agree with the early court of appeals decisions and hold that the discretionary function exception to liability is not applicable to loss caused by dangerous conditions on the road that were created by the government itself and for which no warning was given. But the question appears to have been decided differently by our precedent, albeit without explicit discussion of these policy concerns. And the Schroeders have not asked us to overrule those cases. Although I believe we should be open to reexamine the question in a future case that presents it more fully and squarely, I would apply our past precedent to this case. We decided Holmquist and Nusbaum in reverse order from that of the court of appeals. In Nusbaum, we did not reach the question of whether the discretionary function exception to state liability was inapplicable where the state created dangerous conditions because we determined that the state's decision on road signs was not a discretionary function and thus the exception did not apply in the first place. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 717. But in Holmquist, we reached the question and ultimately rejected the court of appeals' analysis, stating: To say that the discretionary function exception is inapplicable to any decision concerning a highway condition created by the State without regard to the nature of the decision is inconsistent with the language and structure of the State Tort Claims Act. The question is not whether the State's conduct resulted in a condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm; it is whether the conduct consisted of planning or policymaking decisions (protected) or operational level decisions (unprotected). To hold otherwise would effectively nullify the discretionary function exception because a claim of loss caused by the performance or failure to perform a discretionary duty frequently rests on an allegation that the State created a hazardous condition.    The fundamental inquiry must be whether the challenged decision involves a policymaking decision entrusted to the political branches of government and is, therefore, to be protected from judicial second-guessing. Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 232. Thereafter, in Steinke v. City of Andover, we considered the comparable discretionary function exception contained in the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6. 525 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn.1994). The court of appeals had held that the discretionary function exception was not applicable to decisions that involve warning the public of known hazards. Steinke v. City of Andover, C3-93-865, 1993 WL 491248 at  (Minn.App. Nov.30, 1993). We determined that [w]hether a governmental agency was warning the public of known hazards is not relevant in determining whether the conduct involved discretionary decision making. Steinke, 525 N.W.2d at 175.
As discussed above, we have been clear that the discretionary function exception must be narrowly construed. This means, in part, that the exception should apply only when necessary to achieve separation of powers goals. Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 231, 233. But this broad, largely subjective formulation is difficult to apply consistently. Our decisions have attempted to develop more objective tests. In Nusbaum, we mentioned several distinctions that could be drawn: between operations and planning; between implementation and policy; between scientific or professional decisions and policymaking decisions; and between challenges to government conduct pursuant to a policy and challenges to the policy itself. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 720-21. But we acknowledged that these distinctions were not always helpful, and that the ultimate test was whether the challenged governmental action involves a balancing of policy with political, economic and social considerations. Id. at 720. Similarly, in Gleason v. Metro Council Transit Operations , we said: We have interpreted the discretionary function exception narrowly  protecting only those activities which require the balancing of policy objectives, involving social, political, or economic considerations, rather than merely professional or scientific judgments. [ Zank v. Larson, 552 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Minn.1996)] (quoting Steinke v. City of Andover, 525 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn.1994)). 582 N.W.2d 216, 219 n. 5 (Minn.1998). In Nusbaum, we determined that the decisions to place a sign ending a reduced speed zone before an unmarked curve and to provide no specific warning were not mandated by any policy considerations. 422 N.W.2d at 723. We said that the policy that required engineers to determine the appropriate speed on the roads by consideration of enumerated factors did not mandate the particular location of the sign, which was a matter of professional judgment. Id. As to the failure to warn, we said that the policy only determined that engineers may recommend warnings, not that they must, leaving room for professional judgment. Id. Accordingly, we held that the conduct of the engineers was not within the discretionary function exception. Id. In Holmquist, we again determined that the policy concerning warning signs left room for judgment in implementation, and that the state had failed to show that such judgment itself involved the balancing of public policy considerations. 425 N.W.2d at 234. From these cases, we should conclude that, when applying a narrow interpretation of the discretionary function exception, the burden is on the governmental body to show that the policymaking decision mandates the conduct that is the basis for the plaintiff's claim. If, instead, the policy merely permits that conduct, and leaves it to the employee to determine, by use of operating and not discretionary judgment, whether to engage in the conduct, then the discretionary function exception has not been shown.
With these considerations in mind, I would conclude that the policy of the county was to permit grader operators to grade against traffic, but only under certain circumstances and with the use of certain precautions. Because the policy did not mandate that Ario grade against traffic at the time that this accident occurred, or prohibit Ario from warning that he was doing so, but left those choices to Ario's operational judgment, I would conclude that Ario's decisions were not discretionary and did not qualify for statutory immunity under the discretionary function exception. Although it is clear that various employees of the county considered the question of whether it was permissible to grade gravel roads against traffic, it is less clear precisely what decisions were made on that issue. The majority concludes that a policy decision was made to permit grade operators to choose when to grade against traffic. I would agree with the use of the word permit, because grading against traffic was clearly not mandated, and I would add that the evidence demonstrates that even such permission was conditional. More specifically, Ario's choices not to deadhead, which would have allowed him to grade with traffic, and to grade against traffic without any warning to oncoming travelers, were operational choices that did not balance public policy concerns but basically focused on operating convenience  the extra 4-6 minutes that either measure might add to the completion of the job. Because the county's policy was not formal or written, we must look to several sources to determine what the scope of that policy was. The 1985 memorandum of Joe Varda, relied upon by the county as containing at least a partial statement of the policy, describes grading against traffic in permissive terms (you may) and as being subject to these conditions: [5] (1) If you are operating your equipment with routine care and the normally accepted safety precautions are taken (beacon, working lights, flags, etc.)   . (2) [I]f there are cases where sight distance is short either vertically or horizontally, either an attempt to improve the condition should be made or special precautions should be taken. In other words, the permission did not relieve the operator of the need to use due care in determining what precautions should be taken if he was to grade against traffic. The affidavit of David Skelton confirms the county's view that the Varda memorandum does state the county's policy, presumably including the conditions stated by Varda. Skelton's affidavit also confirms that the policy was permissive, not mandatory (St. Louis County has had a policy for a number of years wherein we allow our grader operators to grade against traffic on gravel roads. (Emphasis added.)). In addition, Skelton's affidavit suggests that the policy includes these further conditions: (1) sign usage where practical; and (2) deadheading where practical. Finally, Skelton's affidavit refers to the county's reliance on a booklet entitled, `Blading Aggregate Surfaces' from the National Association of County Engineers Training Guide Series in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Although this booklet advises grading operators to [p]eriodically blade surface of the road against the flow of traffic to eliminate drifting of aggregate onto ends of bridges, culverts, intersections, and railroad crossings[,] it also makes these safety recommendations:  Turn on grader headlights when blading against traffic.      Use signing and proper flaggers where needed to warn traffic of work in progress or as warning if grader is left unattended. From these descriptions of the unwritten policy of the county, I would conclude that the county's grading protocol permitted operators to grade against traffic only when deadheading was not practical and the operators were able to do so with appropriate precautions. This protocol left it to the operators to decide when deadheading was practical and when warning signs were practical. The policy did not require Ario to grade against traffic on the third or fourth pass and did not prohibit Ario from either deadheading after the second pass or placing warning signs after the first, if he was going to grade against traffic. On this record, there is evidence to show that deadheading was practical. According to Ario, he intended to make four passes on this 2-mile segment of County State-Aid Highway 29. At a normal grading speed of 3 miles per hour, the four passes would have taken a total of 2 hours and 40 minutes. Ario's first two passes were on the right side of the road, with traffic. The choice to deadhead before passes three and four would have added only 4-6 minutes to the job, given the ability of the grader to deadhead at 23-30 miles per hour. [6] Ario acknowledged that the only advantage to grading against traffic that he considered was the time saved (4-6 minutes) by not driving to the other end. He did not raise any operational objections to deadheading. Although the county may have been concerned that routine deadheading, by all operators on all jobs, would significantly add to the overall expense of grading and might require a reduction in grading practices, that concern is not presented by these facts. In this circumstance, deadheading was surely practical and would not have added any significant cost. Likewise, the delay to place a warning sign at the north end of the west lane, after Ario completed his first pass to that end, would have been insignificant. In fact, to the extent that Ario considered the time cost of deadheading or placing a warning sign, it was so de minimis as to not amount to a public policy consideration. [7] Further, there is evidence from which one could conclude that the decision to not deadhead, but to grade against traffic without a warning sign, was particularly dangerous in this case because of the time of day and the worsening visibility conditions. Ario testified that when the accident occurred, it was dusk on a day that was already so cloudy that one could not see the sunset. He also said that the road was mostly banked with trees. Because I conclude that the county is not entitled to discretionary function immunity, I would hold that this evidence is sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact on the question of whether Ario's decision not to deadhead, but to grade against traffic without warning, was negligent.