Laserfiche WebLink
N,~ E M 0 RAN D U H <br /> <br />FROM' Dan <br /> <br />D .4 TE:. <br /> <br />Auiust 1; 1997 <br /> <br />Immunity for Traffic Planning Decisions <br /> <br />.Thu ciw of' New Brighton h~ asked r~vo questions reBardin~ decisions about the placement of <br />sLu? s,_:~ on ciW. streets. First, the ciw wants to know whether such decisions are protected by <br />d!sc:-cuonarw immuratw Second. the cir7-,,v~ts to '~now what sta_ncim-d of' negligence applies ~o <br />s'uc!-~ decisions tf the,/ are not entitled to im.muniw.. <br /> <br />The teneral r,ale is :hat municipalities are entit!ed to immunRW from "[a]n7 claim based Upon the <br />.3e':fo~,,'ommnce or the faii=e to exercise or perfo~ a discretions' ~mczion or duEv wheuher or not <br />tnt discretion is abused." P{i~. Stat. ~ 466.03, subd. 6. The kev to dete~ng whe~er a <br />itc:mon is discreuon~v is whether it invglves piing l~vel issues-such ~ "the tin,dial, <br />poiiUcZ, economic, ~d social effects of'a gi,/en pi-an or poh%'. Holmouia v. Sta~e, 425 <br />o<.',x;.id 230. 232 (Mi~. i988~. If so, i~ is centrally entitled to ~-m~iw. h~ on the o-~er h~d, <br />me ~:cision merely mvoNes "the ordin~ da?to-day operanons of the iove~ment", it is ~ <br />oc)crzuona1 decision ~protec~ed by the discrefion~ ~~ docmne. Id~ <br /> <br />Flue sapreme court, has czuzione~ that "the temptation to engage in a mc.re labeling approach must <br />be resisted." !d__~ An u.nmtentional resul{ .of ti~S: hovvever, has been a marked lack Of consistency <br />i: zpplytn~ the discr~tionm~ immumiw, doc,~rine. <br /> <br />Sot e;:amoJe, the fonnuiauon of the Min_nesota ~vlanual on Uni£on-n l~af'fic Cont~oi Devices <br /><P!k, FJTCD) ha~ been held ~o be a discreuonar}, decision, id___~ at 234. S~iim-'ly, the <br />im3ie~enmuon of certain of dne policies contained m the ~TCD h~ been held to be' <br />a:scretmn~,,. ~o ~he ex~n~ tha~ such ~mmemen~no.. requ~es bal~cin~ of competing policy <br />'~t~ecu'~'ea id~ The decision whether to pest a si~n_ w~ing of a ch~_,' ~ in the width of a <br />sn. ou~der, however, was hejd operational, at le~z in the absence of ~v ev~denc~ that the 'state had <br />::Tp.i~ed nrcYe~sional discretion m m~ng the decision. Id~ <br /> <br />i~,,.f,or~ recenti`/, the supreme court considere~ a clahm that ,~noka Co~w w~ ennded to <br /> <br />,'EL i d - _, <br /> <br />55 <br /> -15- <br /> <br /> <br />