Court Opinion

ID: 9670657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:24:02.106426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.114803
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion misconstrues the nature of the cause of action in this case. Although the initial construction of the septic system may have been an improvement to real estate under the statute, appellant has not claimed that the construction caused his injuries. Appellant’s claim arises from respondents’ concealment of a septic tank on their property that they knew or should have known constituted a dangerous condition. Concealment of a dangerous condition clearly does not fall within the definition of improvement as used within the statutory scheme.
An improvement to property is
a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.
Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi’s, Inc., 303 Minn. 59, 63, 226 N.W.2d 603, 607 (1975) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1138 (1971)). All of the cases where sewer or septic systems have been deemed an improvement to property involve defects to newly-added systems. See Wittmer v. Ruegemer, 419 N.W.2d 493 (Minn.1988); Ocel v. City of Eagan, 402 N.W.2d 531 (Minn.1987); Calder v. City of Crystal, 318 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1982); Capitol Supply Co. v. City of St. Paul, 316 N.W.2d 554 (Minn.1982). In this case, respondents “improved” the property by putting a piece of wood over a hole in the ground and then covering the wood with dirt and grass. Granted, doing so involved the expenditure of labor. Although the wood not surprisingly rotted under these conditions and this lack of permanency was the direct cause of appellant’s injury, I am even willing to concede that this may have been a permanent addition to the property. Nevertheless, I am at a loss to understand how “common sense” leads to the conclusion that hiding a potentially dangerous condition enhances the capital value of property. See Pacific Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548, 554 (Minn.1977) (common sense approach must be used to determine what is improvement to real property).
The majority asserts that covering the septic tank increased the salability, and thereby the value, of respondents’ property. It purportedly did so by making it appear to potential buyers that the tank had been properly filled. This alleged increase in value, however, was the result of the misunderstanding suffered by the buyer as a result of respondents’ actions. It was not the result of an*actual increase in the property’s value or utility. Indeed, once the property had been connected to the village sewer system, the septic tank no longer had any value or utility. If anything, the tank’s effect on the worth of the property became negative. Even if respondents had properly filled in the tank, doing so would have at best restored the value of the property to what it would have been had the tank not existed in the first place. Actions that restore, rather than increase, the value or utility of property are repairs and do not fall within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 (1992). Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 450 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn.App.1990), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. March 22, 1990).
Moreover, a landowner who creates a literal pitfall for subsequent users of the property in question is not within the class of persons the legislature intended to protect by enacting Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1. See Ritter v. Abbey-Etna Mach. Co., 483 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.App.1992) (statute intended to protect narrow class of persons from indefinite liability for building design and construction defects), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1992). Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 was not intended to alter the statute of limitations in ordinary cases of landowner liability. Ocel, 402 N.W.2d at 534. This is an ordinary ease before us. Thus, appellant’s claim is governed by the rule that a vendor who actively conceals or fails to disclose a known artificial dangerous condition may under appropriate circumstances be liable for injuries to vend-ees or third persons. Friberg v. Fagen, 404 N.W.2d 400, 402 (Minn.App.1987) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 353 (1965)). *520The parties at a minimum dispute whether respondents concealed or failed to disclose the existence of the septic tank. As this raises a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment should not have been granted. Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.03. I would remand for trial.