Nathan Kariniemi v. City of Rockford, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 431

The City of Rockford contracted with private engineering firm Bonestroo under a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to serve as the City Engineer and to design, review, and oversee construction of public improvements for the Marsh Run development, including storm-water drainage.
The PSA required Bonestroo to perform feasibility, design, and construction-phase services, to act as the City’s agent, and to maintain professional liability and general liability insurance.
Homeowners Nathan and Sanna Kariniemi sued the City, alleging Bonestroo’s negligent design of the drainage system caused flooding and a nuisance; they asserted negligence and nuisance claims against the City.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the negligence claim based on vicarious official immunity but denied summary judgment on the nuisance claim; the court of appeals affirmed immunity for both claims.
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a municipality may claim vicarious common-law official immunity for discretionary acts performed by a non-employee contractor acting as the City Engineer.
The Supreme Court held Bonestroo qualified as a “public official” for official-immunity purposes given the governmental nature of the function, the close agency relationship, and the City’s control and integration of the firm’s work; therefore vicarious official immunity extended to the City for both negligence and nuisance claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a municipality can claim vicarious common-law official immunity for discretionary acts performed by a non-employee contractor acting as City Engineer	Kariniemi: Bonestroo is an independent contractor and not a public official, so official immunity does not apply	City: Bonestroo acted as City Engineer in close coordination and as the City’s agent; its discretionary design decisions are entitled to official immunity, so the City is vicariously immune	Held: Bonestroo qualifies as a public official for common-law official immunity due to the governmental nature of the function and close agency/control; vicarious official immunity applies to the City
Whether the nuisance claim is immune where it arises from the same discretionary design conduct as the negligence claim	Kariniemi: immunity should not shield nuisance claim	City: immunity pleaded for all claims arising from the conduct; same discretionary acts underlie nuisance	Held: Immunity applies to the nuisance claim because it is based on the same underlying discretionary conduct

Sletten v. Ramsey County, 675 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 2004) (standard for reviewing immunity and extension of vicarious official immunity)
Elwood v. Rice County, 423 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1988) (distinguishing statutory immunity from common-law official immunity)
Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012) (private contractors performing government functions may qualify for governmental immunity in some circumstances)
Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997) (private actors in certain government roles may not receive qualified immunity where government control and supervision are lacking)
Wilbrecht v. Babcock, 179 Minn. 263, 228 N.W. 916 (Minn. 1930) (recognizing immunity for engineering decisions on public works)