Do immunities protect a municipality from tort liability for the drainage impacts of a municipal road improvement? Larson v. Linwood Township, 1999 WL 1059657 (Minn. App. 1999) (unpublished). In 1992, the Town Board of Linwood Township voted to cooperate with Anoka County in improving a portion of County Road 26 and to accept jurisdiction of that roadway. During review of the County proposal, the Township's consulting engineer concluded that a new drainage system would be necessary if the proposed improvements to the road were made. Under the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Township and the County the improvements, including a storm sewer system, were to be made before the transfer of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Board voted to fund the Township's share of the road improvements, but, in light of public opposition to the cost, excluded the drainage work. The road improvements were completed, road jurisdiction was ceded to the Township, and heavy rains thereafter caused repeated flooding to the adjacent Larson home and property. The Larsons sued the Township, alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass. The district court dismissed the action, finding that the Township was entitled to the protection of the discretionary function tort immunity applicable to governmental actions. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court first rejected the Township's argument that it was not responsible for the damage because Anoka County performed the grading work. Under Minnesota Statute § 471.49, ruled the court, that each party to a JPA acts on behalf of all of the others. The Court then ruled that the discretionary function immunity did not apply, stating that the immunity protects a governmental body from tort liability when the governmental action "involves the balancing of social, political, or economic factors, [but] not when the action merely involves the exercise of scientific or professional judgment." While the Board decision not to install the drainage system did involve policy considerations sufficient to invoke the immunity, the road grading design was not debated by the Board or open to public comment, and reflected merely the exercise of engineering judgment.
|
||
 |
||