Court Opinion

ID: 9521667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:09:37.041096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:04.662022
License: Public Domain

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that we have created a complex body of law granting immunity to certain actions of government officials but not to others. This point is confirmed when the majority can render from this body of law a well-reasoned opinion concluding that the driver of an emergency vehicle who sees a pedestrian in a crosswalk where no traffic signal is in place need not yield or even think about that pedestrian. I understand the majority’s concern that failing to find immunity in a case such as this may have a chilling effect on the responses of emergency vehicle drivers on route to a medical emergency, but I am not swayed by this concern. Common sense as well as Minnesota traffic regulations dictate that when the driver of an emergency vehicle sees a pedestrian in a crosswalk — in this case, a 79-year-old woman attempting to cross a four-lane street — he does not have the right to decide whether to yield. Instead, the driver must yield to the pedestrian so that the pedestrian may be safe from harm.
In analyzing any immunity issue, the first step is to identify the specific government conduct at issue. Watson ex rel. Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn.1996). The majority characterizes the conduct at issue as paramedic Everson’s operation of an emergency medical vehicle in emergency circumstances. I contend that the court must start with a narrower characterization of Everson’s conduct: his recognition that there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk with no traffic signal in place and his ensuing decision not to yield the right-of-way. Because Everson’s failure to yield to the pedestrian in the crosswalk was proscribed by statute, his conduct cannot be construed as discretionary and thus official immunity should be denied.
*926Our decisions in the area of official immunity recognize that public officials have a duty to adhere to statutes and ordinances. See Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.1998); Waste Recovery Co-op. v. County of Hennepin, 517 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn.1994). In the arena of traffic statutes, the legislature has decided that traffic regulation provisions apply to all drivers except where there are specific exemptions for authorized emergency vehicles. Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 1 (1996). An emergency vehicle may go through red lights and stop signs if its flashing lights and sirens are activated. Id., subd. 2. An emergency vehicle may also drive against traffic and may park or stand at the scene of a reported emergency despite prohibiting signs or laws. Id., subds. 3, 4. Further, an emergency vehicle need not obey speed limits as long as its flashing lights and sirens are activated, although “[t]his provision does not relieve the driver * * * from the duty to drive with due regal’d for the safety of persons using the street * * Minn.Stat. § 169.17 (1996). In 1994, at the time of Kari’s injury, there were no other specific exemptions from traffic regulations for emergency vehicles.
In 1994, the following provision set forth in mandatory language a driver’s duty to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk:
Where traffic control signals are not in place or in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need he to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
Minn.Stat. § 169.21, subd. 2 (1994) (emphasis added). Under the plain language of this provision and the provisions setting forth the list of exemptions for emergency vehicles, drivers of emergency vehicles are required to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk where no traffic signal is in place.
The majority’s contention that the list of statutory exemptions for emergency vehicles is not an exclusive list contradicts the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 169.03, subd. 1, which states explicitly that “[t]he provisions of this chapter applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by * * ⅜ [a] city * * * subject to such specific exemptions as are set forth in this chapter with reference to authorized emergency vehicles.” (Emphasis added.) Because all vehicles are required by Minn.Stat. § 169.21, subd. 2, to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and because there is no specific exemption from this requirement for emergency vehicles, the traffic regulation statutes require emergency vehicles to yield. I am not willing to hold, as the majority does, that traffic regulation statutes or any other statutory mandates have no relevance to the question of whether an official’s conduct is immune. Everson’s failure to yield despite knowing that Kari was in the crosswalk is not immune conduct. The majority errs in concluding otherwise. I come to no conclusion about whether Everson’s conduct was negligent— that is for the lower court or a jury to decide. But it is clear to me that Everson’s conduct is not immune from suit as a matter of law.
Moreover, I contend that the majority construes Pletan v. Gaines too broadly and applies it here to facts that are readily distinguishable. In Pletan, a fleeing suspect — not the pursuing police officer — killed a seven-year-old boy as the boy crossed an intersection in a crosswalk. 494 N.W.2d 38, 39 (Minn.1992). The officer, in contrast, noticed the boy and applied his brakes, slowing to 5 or 10 miles per hour. Id. We granted immunity based solely on the officer’s decision to engage in the high speed chase in the first place; we did not come to any conclusions about whether the officer’s decisions made while driving were immune from suit. Id. at 40-41. Unless Pletan is read to apply far beyond its facts, it does not appear to lead to the majority’s conclusion that Everson’s decision not to yield is immune conduct.
Everson stated that he did not think about Kari or her right to cross in the crosswalk. I contend that once Everson was aware of Kari’s presence, he should have thought about her right to be there. I would hold that once Everson saw Kari in the crosswalk, he no longer had the discretion not to yield *927right-of-way to her and thus his failure to yield opens his conduct to suit.