Opinion ID: 1936904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ramsey County's Immunity Defenses and Summary Judgment Motions

Text: The answer submitted by Ramsey County on December 22, 1997, asserted an affirmative defense of both statutory and common law immunity without specifying what theories of immunity it was relying on. In its first motion for summary judgment seeking immunity, Ramsey County sought statutory immunity and unimproved property immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subds. 6 & 13 (2002). The district court denied the request for immunity and the court of appeals affirmed. In the first appeal, the court of appeals held that [b]ecause statutory immunity does not protect operational decisions, the district court did not err in denying [Ramsey County's] motion for summary judgment. Sletten v. City of Maplewood, No. C7-98-2377, 1999 WL 595368 (Minn.App.1999), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 1999) ( Sletten I ). The court of appeals further denied the request for unimproved property immunity because Ramsey County had actually improved the property. Ramsey County did not seek vicarious official immunity in its first summary judgment motion. On December 22, 2000, Ramsey County brought another motion for summary judgment on a new theory of vicarious official immunity. Ramsey County brought this motion after extensive discovery. [6] Ramsey County argued that as a matter of law, it was not negligent in its maintenance of the Maplewood composting site, that the decisions as to when to turn the windrows [7] was discretionary and, therefore, Ramsey County was entitled to immunity for said actions. Ramsey County also argued that the Slettens had failed to demonstrate causation and damages as a result of, among other things, the grass hauling frequency, that the Slettens could not prove negligence in Ramsey County's operation of the site, and that they could not recover for nuisance, trespass or failure to warn. As part of this motion, Ramsey County attached copies of the city's CUPs and evidence of the MPCA's authority. Ramsey County only requested that immunity be applied to the turning of the windrows, which it characterized as a discretionary act. The district court characterized the challenged activities as operational level activities rather than planning or policymaking activities. Ramsey County claimed that the act of turning the windrows (when and how to turn them) falls under vicarious official immunity. Ramsey County also argued that there was a lack of evidence relating to the negligence claim regarding hauling of grass and control of water from the site. With regard to the failure to warn claim, Ramsey County argued that it had no duty to warn the neighbors concerning the results from a 1994 leachate water study and the Slettens suffered no damages.