Opinion ID: 1674584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discretionary Acts Exception To Municipal Tort Liability

Text: With specified limitations and exceptions, Minn.St. c. 466 abolishes governmental (sovereign) immunity of municipalities as to tort claims. Section 466.02 reads as follows: Subject to the limitations of Laws 1963, Chapter 798 [Minn.St. 466.01 to 466.15], every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function. The exceptions or limitations are set forth in § 466.03, which provides in part: Subdivision 1. Section 466.02 does not apply to any claim enumerated in this section.          Subd. 6. Any claim based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused. Subd. 7. Any claim against a municipality as to which the municipality is immune from liability by the provisions of any other statute. The cited exception, Minn.St. 466.03, subd. 6, is patterned after § 2680(a), the discretionary function exception, of the Federal Torts Claim Act, 62 Stat. 982, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(a). The leading United States Supreme Court decision first interpreting that exception is Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953). Numerous Federal and other state court decisions have followed from Dalehite. In general, the judicial interpretations of the discretionary acts exception find greater applicability (and therefore immunity) for decisions made on the executive (planning) level of conduct than on the operational level. See, Dahlstrom v. United States, 228 F.2d 819 (8 Cir. 1956). Minnesota has followed this interpretation. Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 266, 170 N.W.2d 206 (1969). In Silver, this court held that the deployment of police and fire-fighting resources in the face of threatened and actual riotous circumstances constituted the exercise of such a discretionary function and accordingly the city was immune from tort liability pursuant to the exception set forth in § 466.03, subd. 6. It appears reasonably clear that the facts in Silver v. City of Minneapolis, supra , represented an executive (planning) policy decision under circumstances clearly calling for the exercise of a discretionary function, i. e., how to deploy personnel. In the instant case, the failure of the city to act in the face of a known dangerous condition occurred in an entirely different circumstance, namely, at the operational level rather than the executive or administrative level. We hold that the failure of the St. Paul city officials to control vicious dogs under circumstances wherein the city had knowledge that the identified and impoundable vicious dogs prowled uncontrolled on public sidewalks does not constitute a failure to exercise a discretionary function within the meaning of Minn.St. 466.03, subd. 6, and therefore the city of St. Paul is not immune from liability. Reversed and remanded. SHERAN, C. J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.