HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Work Session - LMC re maintenance policies
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE
STREET MAINTENANCE POLICIES?
0LQQHVRWDFDVHVKDYHLOOXVWUDWHGKRZLPSRUWDQWLWLVIRUFLWLHVWRKDYHVWUHHWPDLQWHQDQFH
SROLFLHV3ROLFLHVIRUVWUHHWPDLQWHQDQFHDFWLYLWLHVVXFKDVVQRZSORZLQJVWUHHWVZHHSLQJSRWKROH
SULRULWLHVIRUWKLVZRUNDQGSURYLGHDQH[SODQDWLRQDVWRKRZDQGZK\WKHFLW\SHUIRUPHGRU
Legal Background
No Negligence
By having a policy, the city can show it was not negligent. A policy can help the city explain what
it did and why it did it. It can support a finding that the city exercised reasonable care given the
Statutory Discretionary Immunity and Official Immunity
A policy can also support a defense of statutory discretionary immunity. Minnesota Statute 466.03
subd. 6 states that cities are immune from liability for discretionary policy decisions based upon
the weighing of political, social, safety, and economic factors. Official immunity, which has been
created by case law, also provides protection for city officials for discretionary actions of
individual employees.
When cities develop written street maintenance policies, they are looking at all of those factors. A
city cannot plow every street or fix every pothole at the same time so it needs to establish priorities
based on safety, social, and economic factors such as how many employees there are, how many
miles of streets need to be maintained, how much money is available, and what streets are heavily
traveled.
is important to have street maintenance policies. Both cases involved car accidents that were
caused by snow piled on the edge of a bridge. In Hennes v. Patterson, 443 N.W. 2d 198 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1989), the court dismissed the State of Minnesota on the grounds of discretionary immunity
because the state had a snowplowing policy. The snow on the bridge had not been plowed because
the policy had a provision stating if the weather was dangerous to employees, they should not go
out. In Gorecki v. County of Hennepin, 443 N.W. 2d 236 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989), the County was
denied discretionary immunity because it did not have any snowplowing policy. The County had
no plan to plow the snow off the bridge.
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
In 1999, there was another case involving street maintenance. In Conlin v. City of St. Paul, 605
N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 2000), a motorcyclist lost control of his vehicle and fell on a street that had
been cleaned, oiled, and sanded the day before. He sued the city claiming it was negligent in not
inspecting the street after the sanding project and for not placing a warning sign about the
hazardous condition. The Minnesota Court held the city was not able to use statutory discretionary
immunity for its decision not to have warning signs concerning the sanding and sweeping because
ny policy. This points out the importance of considering of
the use of warning devices as part of any maintenance policy.
In 2004, there was another Minnesota case that confirmed how important it is to have street
maintenance policies. In Minder v. Anoka County, 677 N.W. 2d, (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), a
motorcyclist had an accident that the driver alleged was caused by the motorcycle hitting a pothole
on a county road. He claimed the County was negligent for failing to maintain the road and for
failing to warn of the pothole.
The County showed it has a pavement management where it rates the conditions of the roads under
an Overall Condition Index. It then decides based on traffic volume, complaints, money
availability, and other factors which roads will be reconditioned or overlayed in a year. The
highway department also patches potholes on a regular schedule and in response to complaints.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the County was entitled to statutory discretionary
immunity because it had a maintenance policy that was developed weighing political, social, and
economic factors and it had no actual notice of the pothole.
Written Policy
A written policy is important because it provides the city
Sample Policies
with a consistent and documented method of doing the
dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ
street maintenance. It also provides guidance and
ǁĞƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŚĞůƉƉƵďůŝĐǁŽƌŬƐ
assistance to employees on how to do the work and a way
ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶ
to measure employee performance. A written policy can
ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ͗
also provide assistance in long-term planning based on the
Sidewalk Inspection and
number of employees and the amount of equipment needed
Maintenance Policies: They Are
for the level of service desired.
(includes model policy)
In addition, a written policy can protect the city from
liability by helping to support defenses of discretionary
LMCIT Model Pothole Repair
immunity and no negligence. Because the policy is in
Policy
writing, there is more certainty as to what the policy
LMCIT Model Street Sweeping
requires.
Policy
LMCIT Model Snowplowing And
Ice Control Policy
2
Model Policies
In addition to the model street maintenance policies LMCIT has developed, we also encourage
cities to use pavement management programs. There are many well-established programs that have
been developed by other cities or such groups as the American Public Works Association.
LMCIT Loss Control 1/09
Reviewed: 04/10
3