Court Opinion

ID: 9883870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:23:32.131821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:32.469043
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. There is no dispute that the accident happened in September, 1982 and that the 1982 immunity statute applies. Minn.Stat. § 3.736 (1982). However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the immunity statute was intended to apply to non-users of the park. Reason and common sense indicate that the intent of the 1982 statute was only to apply to users. Additionally, strong evidence of this legislative intent appears in the 1985 amendment to the statute:
Any loss incurred by a user within the boundaries of the outdoor recreation system and arising from the construction, operation, or maintenance of the outdoor recreation system * * * (emphasis added).
Minn.Laws 1985, First Spec.Sess. ch. 16, art. 1, § 1.
Apparently in response to our supreme court’s close decision (four justices dissenting) in Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491 (Minn.1984), the legislature enacted this amendment to make explicit its intent that immunity only attaches when the injured party is a user of the park.
In this case, Soo Line and Lawler were clearly not users of the park. The state acquired the land to be used for park property in 1974, when the railroad had already been in place for a substantial number of years. At the time of the accident, Soo Line was using its own property. Because Soo Line and Lawler were not users of the park property, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion.