The Authority asserts that it is immune from liability for Angell’s accident. The Authority is a local governmental unit and a political subdivision of the state. Minn. Stat. § 398A.04, subd. 1 (Supp.1997). As a. regional railroad authority, the Authority has tort liability to the extent a municipality would be liable under Minn. Stat. §§ 466.01 to 466.15 (1996). Minn. Stat. § 466.01, subd. 1 (Supp.1997); Minn. Stat. § 398A.04, subd. 6(a) (1996). While municipalities are generally liable for their torts, the legislature has provided for limited exceptions of immunity. See Minn. Stat. §§ 466.02, 466.03. One such exception applies when the municipality’s alleged tortious conduct constitutes a discretionary function, whether or not that discretion was abused. Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6. This type of immunity, called “statutory immunity,” 2 protects policy-making, or dis *346 cretionary activities that are legislative or executive in nature. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 46 (Minn.1996).

Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Steinke v. City of Andover · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Snyder v. City of Minneapolis · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Bernthal v. City of St. Paul · 1985 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Hoben v. City of Minneapolis · 1982 1 citation

The appellant is a self-insurer and denies liability on the ground that it enjoys sovereign immunity under exceptions to Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (1980), which provides as follows:

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Peter Richard Rickmyer v. Xenos Letoi Brooks, Marva Wagner in her individual capacity, and in ... · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Linda Holper v. City of Gilman · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

MFK by and through her natural parent, Kathryn Kendrick v. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley ISD 113, ... · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Christine L. Rathbun v. Fillmore County · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Lakecia Gant, as trustee for the next-of-kin of Raven Bianca Gant v. Daniel Ledman, in his ... · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Shane Feldhaus v. City of Minnetonka · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Magnolia 8 Properties, LLC v. City of Maple Plain · 2017 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, and the Class of Beneficiaries, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 573.02 v. The City of Stillwater, Minnesota · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Jesse James O�Brien v. City of Mentor · 2017 2 citations

Municipalities are generally liable for their torts. Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (2014).

Jessica Mattson v. City of Rushford, Minnowa Construction, Inc., State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, Edwards and Kelcey, Inc., Minnowa Construction, Inc., Third Party v. Eric Kaiser d/b/a Kaiser Concrete, Third Party · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Jason Jalony Cox v. Dakota County · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

· 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

· 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Pigs R US, LLC v. Compton Township · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Krieger v. City of St. Paul · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

JW Ex Rel. BRW v. 287 INTER. DIST. · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate District · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Prokop v. Independent School Dist. No. 625 · 2008 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department · 2005 2 citations

II. The city argues that it is entitled to statutory immunity because the city's decision to own, maintain, and use police dogs is a discretionary one entitled to protection under Minn. Stat. §§ 466.02, 446.03, subd. 6 (2002) (providing that cities are immune from claims "based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty"). The district court determined that statutory immunity did not apply because "Officer's Yates' use of [Chips] under the circumstances may only be considered `operational' as it does not bear the indicia of social, political, or economic motivation that are the hallmark of public policy decision making." When discussing statutory immunity, we must identify the exact governmental conduct that is being challenged. See Conlin v. City of St. Paul, 605 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Minn.2000). Statutory immunity does not protect operational conduct or the implementation of policy; rather, it protects conduct and decision making at the planning level, where cities evaluate factors involving the financial, political, economic, and social effects of its decisions. See Watson, 553 N.W.2d at 412-13. The city characterizes the challenged conduct as involving the city's decision to own police dogs because respondent's claim is based solely on the dog bite statute, which imposes liability on the city merely because it owns these dogs. See Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2002) (imposing liability on any dog "owner," if dog "without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be"). The city further asserts that its decision to own police dogs was based on an evaluation of a number of policies, including officer safety, public safety, training issues, the expenses associated with owning dogs, and the effectiveness of police dogs. While the city's liability to respondent depends partially upon its decision to own police dogs, respondent's claim challenges the conduct of Officer Yates and his decision to release Chips, despite the fact that respondent was standing between Chips and her husband. When the challenged conduct is examined in this way, Yates' decisions to deploy Chips and pursue respondent's husband must be viewed as operational level decisions that are not entitled to statutory immunity. We therefore affirm the district court's determination that the city is not entitled to statutory immunity.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Unzen v. City of Duluth · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minder v. Anoka County · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Olmanson v. Le Sueur County · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Zaske Ex Rel. Bratsch v. Lee · 2002 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits · 2002 1 citation

Third, the law has long recognized that cities engage in business activities. Minnesota’s legislature has expressly granted cities the power to engage in proprietary activities. See, e.g., Minn. Stat § 360.032 (2000) (airports); Minn. Stat. § 412.211, subd. 22 (2000) (sewage and garbage disposal); Minn. Stat. § 412.321 (2000) (gas, light, power and utility services); MinmStat. § 459.14 (2000) (automobile parking facilities); Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 16 (2000) (hospitals); Minn. Stat. § 471.191 (2000) (golf courses, marinas, concert halls, museums, swimming pools, arenas, and athletic fields). Similarly, case law recognizes that cities *500 act in a proprietary capacity by providing certain services and operating certain facilities. See e.g., S. Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 364-65 (Minn.1998) (recognizing legislature granted SMMPA authority to run its affairs like private corporation); City of Staples v. Minn. Power & Light, 196 Minn. 303, 305, 265 N.W. 58, 59 (1936) (water and electric service). Moreover, just like businesses, employees and officers of municipalities are subject to liabilities for their torts when acting within the scope of their employment or duties. Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (2000).

Fear v. Independent School District 911 · 2001 1 citation

Under the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, a municipality 3 can be held liable for the torts of its officers, agents, and employees. Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (2000). There are specific exceptions to municipal tort liability, including discretionary and recreational immunity. Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subds. 6, 6e (2000). Statutory immunity is to be construed narrowly. Angell v. Hennepin County Reg’l Rail Auth., 578 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn.1998). Discretionary immunity, sometimes referred to as “statutory immunity,” protects the government from claims arising from performing or failing to perform a discretionary act, regardless of whether it abused its discretion. Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6.

Loven v. City of Minneapolis · 2001 1 citation

Municipalities are liable for them own torts, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (1998). The monetary limitation applicable to tort claims arising out of this accident is $750,000. Minn. Stat. § 466.04, subds. 1(a)(2), lb (1998).

S.W. v. Spring Lake Park School District No. 16 · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Doe v. Park Center High School · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Merchlewitz v. Midwest 4 Wheel Drive Ass'n · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Lundstrom v. City of Apple Valley · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Christensen v. Mower County · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Gerber v. Neveaux · 1998 2 citations

As a general rule, a county is “subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties.” Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (Minn.1996). This general rule does not apply to claims “based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” *403 Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (1996); Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 412 (Minn.1996) (recognizing a municipality’s “statutory” immunity for discretionary functions under Minn. Stat. §§ 466.02, 466.03, subd. 6).

As a general rule, a county is “subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties.” Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (Minn.1996). This general rule does not apply to claims “based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.” *403 Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (1996); Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 412 (Minn.1996) (recognizing a municipality’s “statutory” immunity for discretionary functions under Minn. Stat. §§ 466.02, 466.03, subd. 6).

Riedel v. Goodwin · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Angell v. Hennepin County · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Ai Viet Thi Nguyen v. Phu Chau Nguyen · 1997 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Terwilliger v. Hennepin County · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authority · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Johnson v. Washington County · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Soucek v. Banham · 1993 2 citations

Discretionary immunity The general rule for tort liability of a municipality is 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 (1990). However, as an exception to municipal tort liability, there is no municipal liability for [a]ny 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 (1990). Whether the doctrine of discretionary immunity applies is a question of law. Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781, 786 (Minn.1989). This court is not bound by the trial court's determination of a purely legal question. Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984). Discretionary function immunity "seeks to protect policy-based decisions and prevent the impairment of effective government." Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth, 422 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn.1988). Its purpose is to "assure that the courts do not pass judgment on policy decisions entrusted to coordinate branches of government." Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 231. In applying discretionary function immunity, the governmental conduct challenged must be examined. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 722. There is a generally recognized distinction between planning level decisions, which are protected, and operational level decisions, which are unprotected. Schaeffer v. State, 444 N.W.2d 876, 879 (Minn. App.1989).[2] Generally, conduct occurring *162 at a planning level is insulated from suit because it involves policy considerations. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 722; see also Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 232 (a planning level decision is one which involves "the evaluation of factors such as the financial, political, economic, and social effects of a given plan or policy"). Conduct occurring at an operational or ministerial level is less likely to involve policy considerations and is generally not protected. Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 722. An operational level decision involves "conduct which merely puts into effect a predetermined plan." Gonzales v. Hollins, 386 N.W.2d 842, 845 (Minn.App.1986). Although recognized, the planning-operational distinction should not be used in a conclusory manner. After identifying the precise governmental conduct that is being challenged, "[t]he critical inquiry * * * is whether the challenged governmental conduct involved a balancing of policy objectives." Nusbaum, 422 N.W.2d at 722; see also Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 43 (Minn.1992) (the underlying consideration is "whether the conduct involves the balancing of public policy considerations in the formulation of policy"). Even where decisions require the exercise of professional judgment, the professional evaluation of complex factors does not "convert" an operational decision into a discretionary function, absent a demonstration that immunity is essential to avoid judicial interference with governmental policymaking.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Boop v. City of Lino Lakes · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Olson v. Ramsey County · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. · 1993 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Koelln v. Nexus Residential Treatment Facility · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Pletan v. Gaines · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami County · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Pletan v. Gaines · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, Dept. of Public Works · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Kampsen v. County of Kandiyohi · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Snyder v. City of Minneapolis · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Johnston v. Michael Shea and Associates · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Chabot v. City of Sauk Rapids · 1987 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Engle v. Hennepin County · 1987 1 citation

Minn. Stat. § 466.02 states governmental units are liable for their torts, and those of their employees, unless an exception is satisfied. The exception claimed here is “[a]ny 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.

Seaton v. County of Scott · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Stucci Ex Rel. Tierney v. City of Saint Paul · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Nelson v. House · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Robinson v. Hollatz · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Bernthal v. City of St. Paul · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Bjorkquist Ex Rel. Bjorkquist v. City of Robbinsdale · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota

Toomey v. Dakota County · 2025 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Seelig v. Ramsey County, Minnesota · 2025 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Sivels v. Ramsey County · 2024 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Blackwell v. Social Security · 2024 2 citations

accompanying memorandum of law plead numerous state law counts, including violations of Minn. Stat. 363A.17 (business discrimination), Minn. Stat. 629.38 (requiring disclosure of cause for private arrest), Minn. Stat. 466.02 (municipal tort liability), and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.4 (See id. at 6, 8–9, 11–17.) The complaint

Chey v. HRI Properties, LLC · 2023 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Brennan v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · 2023 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Greene v. Meeker County Department of Human Services (DHS) · 2022 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service · 2022 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Berry v. Hennepin County · 2021 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

Parada v. Anoka County · 2021 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.