• Claims Against the Government in Minnesota
Tort claims for bodily injury against governmental entities are governed by statute. With regard to the State of Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 3.736 provides the authority for individuals to sue the State as follows:
The state will pay compensation for injury to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of an employee of the state while acting within the scope of office or employment . . . under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.
Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 1 (the State Tort Claims Act).
Likewise, Minn. Stat. ch. 466 governs claims against “municipalities.” Similar to the State Tort Claims Act, the municipality liability statute states:
Subject to the limitations of sections 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.
Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (the Municipal Tort Liability Act). For purposes of the statute, the term “municipality” includes, but is not limited to, any city, county, town, public authority or public corporation. Minn. Stat. § 466.01, subd. 1.
I. IMMUNITY
Although both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act allow a private individual to bring a lawsuit against either the State of Minnesota or a city, county, etc., those claims are subject to two distinct immunity defenses under Minnesota law. The first defense involves “official immunity,” which is a creature of common law. Official immunity protects the governmental employee’s discretionary acts at the operational level as well as the doctrine of vicarious official immunity that protects the government as the employer.
The second defense by the government is known as “statutory immunity,” which is defined by statute in both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Claims Act. With regard to the State Tort Claims Act, “a loss caused by the performance or failure to perform a discretionary duty, whether or not the discretion is abused,” is immune from liability. Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(b). Similarly, municipalities are immune from liability for “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.” Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6. Statutory immunity is designed to apply to discretionary decisions at the policymaking level of government.
A. Official Immunity.
In Minnesota, governmental employees are entitled to immunity when they are performing discretionary functions. Janklow v. Minnesota Board of Examiners, 552 N.W.2d 711, 715-16 (Minn. 1996). As government employees, they are “accorded near complete immunity for their actions in the course of their official duties, so long as they do not exceed the discretion granted them by law.” Id. at 716. Such official immunity is intended “to protect public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action.” Dokman v. County of Hennepin, 637 N.W.2d 286, 296 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), rev. denied, (Minn. Feb. 28, 2002).
Under a claim of official immunity, the first step in the analysis of whether the doctrine applies to a given situation is to identify the precise governmental conduct at issue. Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn. 1996). Once the conduct is identified, the question becomes whether the act is discretionary or ministerial. Id. Discretionary decisions are those which involve the exercise of judgment or discretion, and which are protected by the doctrine of official immunity. See Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31, 41 (Minn. 1990). In contrast, ministerial decisions, which are the types of decisions that are absolute, certain, imperative and involve merely the execution of a specific duty which arises from fixed and designated facts, are not immune from suit. See Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100, 107 (Minn. 1991). “Some degree of judgment and discretion will not necessarily confer discretionary immunity on an official; the crucial focus is upon the nature of the act.” Ellwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671, 677 (Minn. 1998).
The categorization of an act as discretionary or ministerial is a legal question for the court. Kelly v. City of Minneapolis, 598 N.W.2d 657, 664 (Minn. 1999). In making this determination, the court should keep in mind that official immunity “protects public officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action and impair the effective performance of their duties.” Ellwood, 423 N.W.2d at 677. “When the job is simple and definite,” as when a public official has a clear “duty to adhere to ordinance and statutes,” the official is not entitled to immunity. Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 316 (Minn. 1998). Moreover, an official cannot “convert a ministerial decision into a discretionary one by refusing to comply with the mandate contained in a city ordinance.” Id.
1. Vicarious official immunity.
“If a public official is entitled to immunity for a discretionary act, the employing entity is generally entitled to vicarious official immunity as well.” Fear v. ISD 911, 634 N.W.2d 204, 216 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). As the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated, “when applicable, vicarious official immunity protects the government entity from suit based upon the official immunity of its employee. In prior cases, ‘generally, if the employee is found to have immunity, the claim against the municipal employer has been dismissed without explanation.’” Pletan v. Gains, 494 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn. 1992). Vicarious official immunity will be granted when the failure to grant it would focus “stifling attention” on the official’s performance “to the serious detriment of that performance.” Olson v. Ramsey County, 509 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn. 1993). In such circumstances, the Supreme Court has concluded that, “it would be anomalous . . . to impose liability on the government employer for the very same acts for which the employee receives immunity.” Watson, 553 N.W.2d at 415. Cf. Pletan, 494 N.W.2d at 38 (suggesting, in dicta, that the Supreme Court might, under some circumstances, find an exception to vicarious official immunity and hold a governmental entity liable even though the official was not personally liable). Vicarious official immunity will apply to a public employer and his based on the nature of an employee’s immune conduct, regardless of whether the employee was actually named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316. “Whether to apply vicarious official immunity is a policy question.” Kuha, 176 F. Supp. 2d at 935.
2. Malice Defeats Official Immunity.
Even if a court concludes a decision involved discretionary acts, employees and officers of the government are not entitled to official immunity if they acted maliciously. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 176 F. Supp. 2d 926, 934 (D. Minn. 2001). Malice, for purposes of official immunity, is “the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification” or the “willful violation of a known right.” Rico, 472 N.W.2d at 107. “Malice in the context of official immunity means intentionally committing an act that the official has reason to believe is legally prohibited.” Kelly, 598 N.W.2d at 663.
B. Statutory Immunity.
As indicated, Minnesota Statutes also provide immunity for both the State of Minnesota and “municipalities” as indicated in the express language of the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act. Statutory immunity was created when Minnesota waived its sovereign immunity to tort suits in 1975 in order to provide some limited exceptions to the waiver. Janklow, 552 N.W.2d at 714. Again, whether a government entity is protected by statutory immunity is a question of law, and the statutory provision providing this immunity is to be narrowly construed. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Minn. 1996); see also,Fear, 634 N.W.2d at 210.
When discussing statutory immunity, it is first appropriate to identify the exact governmental conduct that is being challenged. See Conlin v. City of Saint Paul, 605 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn. 2000). Unlike official immunity, which protects decisions and actions at the operational level, statutory immunity protects policymaking activities at the planning level, where the government evaluates factors involving the financial, political, economic and social effects of its decisions. Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth, 422 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 1998); Watson, 553 N.W. 2d at 412-13. Further, while official immunity is available to an individual, and vicarious official immunity is accorded to a governmental entity, statutory immunity applies only to the governmental entity. See Janklow, 552 N.W.2d at 716.
II. NOTICE
Both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act require a person to give notice to the state or municipality of the claim within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury is discovered. See Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 5; Minn. Stat. § 466.05, subd. 1. The notice must state the time, place and circumstance of the alleged loss or injury, the names of any state or municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded. Id. Actual notice of sufficient facts to reasonably put the governing body of the municipality of the state or municipality or their insurers on notice of a possible claim shall be construed to be complied with the notice requirements of both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act. Id. Under both statutes, the time for giving such notice does not include the time during which the person injured is incapacitated by the injury from giving the notice. Id.
III. LIABILITY CAPS
As of 2008, both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act cap liability on any claim within the scope of each respective act to “$300,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission and $300,000 to any claimant in any other case.” Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 4(a); Minn. Stat. § 466.04, subd. 3(a)(1).
With regard to the State Tort Claims Act and Municipal Tort Liability Act, “the limitation imposed by [the damage cap] on individual claimants includes damages claimed for loss of services or loss of support arising out of the same tort. Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 4; Minn. Stat. § 466.04 subd. 2; see also Roe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 472 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1991) (wife’s claim for loss of consortium and health insurer’s subrogation claim for medical expenses were included in the same liability cap that limited recovery by the injured person under the Municipal Tort Liability Act). Indeed, my research did not reveal any caselaw that would prevent recovery of $300,000 from both the State and a municipality if both governmental bodies were negligent to the same individual in the same incident. This makes sense given the two governmental bodies are regulated by official statutes that apply independent of one another.
Furthermore, Minn. Stat. § 466.04, subd. 1(b), expressly states that “no award for damage on any such claim [against a municipality] shall include punitive damages.” The State Tort Claims Act does not have a provision concerning punitive damages, and caselaw is silent in this regard.
In considering the monetary cap provided by both the State Tort Claims Act and the Municipal Tort Liability Act, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the maximum liability limitations do not extend to the independent liability of a nongovernmental joint enterpriser. Dang v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 490 N.W.2d 653, 658 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), rev. denied, (Minn. Dec. 15, 1992). Therefore, to the extent a private, nongovernmental party could be found liable to a particular individual, even though the government may also be liable in that action, only the government’s liability is capped by the statutory amounts. Those liability caps would not apply to the nongovernmental entity.
IV. CONCLUSION.
Indeed, both the State of Minnesota and governmental municipalities enjoy a broad scope of immunity for claims of bodily injury. By way of common law, employees and officers of both the State of Minnesota and municipalities enjoy official immunity for discretionary acts that involve some sort of professional judgment in the day-to-day operations of the government. Likewise, the doctrine of vicarious official immunity protects the state itself and the municipalities if their employees or officers were performing discretionary functions as opposed to ministerial acts. Official immunity (and vicarious official immunity) is lost, however, if a claimant can show the governmental employees or officers acted with malice. In addition to official immunity, which protects operational-type functions, both the State of Minnesota and municipalities are afforded statutory immunity for their planning-level decisions. Unlike official immunity, however, statutory immunity only protects the state and municipalities, but not their respective employees and officers.
With regard to the immunity defenses, the cases paint a wavering pattern with regard to when our Supreme Court will invoke immunity and when immunity will not apply. Once the specific conduct of a particular case is identified, it will be worthwhile to perform specific legal research regarding the particular conduct involved in order to better evaluate whether the State will be able to successfully invoke an official immunity or statutory immunity defense.
If an injured person wishes to bring a claim against either the state or a municipality, that individual must give notice to the governmental entity within 180 days of the harm, including specific details about the injury in that notice. Any claim for damages against the state will be capped at $300,000 and, in addition, municipal liability cannot exceed $300,000 per claim. Both of these damage caps apply to claims of loss of consortium, and punitive damages are also not available against municipalities. The caps would not apply, however, to a nongovernmental agency.
© The Law Office of Chad J. Hintz, P.L.L.C.. The materials and information on this website are not legal advice, nor are they intended to be legal advice. You are encouraged to consult an attorney for legal advice concerning your specific situation. Web design and development: Stylefish