Laserfiche WebLink
TO: Charlie <br />FROM: Dan <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: August' l, 1997 <br /> <br />immunity for Traffic Planning Decisions <br /> <br />The city of New Brighton has asked v"Vo questions regarding decisions about the placement of <br />stop signs on city streets. First, the ciu wants to know' whether s~2ch decisions are protected by <br />discretionary, immunity. Second, the city wants to know what standard of negligence applies to <br />such decisions if they are not entitled to immunity. <br /> <br />I_~ immunity. <br /> <br />The general rule is that municipalities are entitled to immunity, from "ia]ny claim based upon the <br />performance or the failure rd exercise or Perform a discretionar?' filnction or duty, whether or not <br />the discretion is abused." Minn. Stat: § 466.0.3, sub& 6. The key to determirf, ng whether a <br />decision is discretionary, is' whether ii involves planning level issues such as "the financial, <br />political, economic, and social- effects of a given pi'an or policy." Holmquist v. State, 425 <br />N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. 1988). if so, it is generally entitled to Lrn.m~ty. if, on the other hand, <br />the decision merely involves "the ordinary day-to-day operations of the government", it is an <br />operational decision unprotected by the discretionary immumt-y doctrine, id__.:. <br /> <br />The supreme court has cautioned that "the temptation to engage in a mere [abeiing approach must <br />be resisted." Id_~. An unintenriOna['resuit of this, however, has been a marked lack of consistency <br />in applying the discretionary immunitY doctrine. <br /> <br />For example, the formulation of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices <br />[~hMUT CD) b, as' '~ __ . <br /> oe,,n held to be a. discretionary decision. Id. at 234. Similarly. the <br />implementation of certain of the policies contained in the _Miv1LrTCD has been held to be <br />discretionary., to the extent that such implementation requkres balancing of comperin~ policy <br />objectives, id__= Tile decision whether to p°sr a sign warning Of a change in tb-e width of a <br />shoulder, however, was held operational, ar least in the absence of any evidence that the state had <br />applied professional discretiOn in making th~ decision. [d__~ <br /> <br />More recently, the supreme court considered a claim that :<aoka Countw was entitled to <br />discretionary immunity for injuries arising out of the counrv'S decision not r_o place signs warning <br /> <br />3,.:G2.2 2 4.J fl <br />?1E22 d - l-'- <br /> <br /> <br />