Steven Igou v. Garden City Township
A16-999
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Wayne Kendall, a Garden City Township employee responsible for plowing/sanding, encountered a steep icy dead-end hill while operating a township sanding truck in Feb. 2012.
- The truck’s auger intermittently clogged; after initial attempts to clear it, Kendall asked passerby Steven Igou to climb into the truck’s gravel box and shovel sand into the auger to keep the spreading mechanism working.
- Kendall warned Igou not to get his leg in the auger; Kendall then backed the truck down the hill with Igou in the box, the truck began sliding, and Igou jumped off and was injured.
- Igou sued Kendall and the township for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting (1) common-law official immunity for Kendall and vicarious official immunity for the township, and (2) statutory snow-and-ice immunity.
- The district court granted summary judgment on official and vicarious immunity (also cited snow-and-ice immunity); the Court of Appeals affirmed based on official and vicarious immunity and declined to decide the statutory immunity question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kendall’s recruitment of a passerby to assist with the auger is discretionary (entitling him to official immunity) | Igou: Recruitment and driving with him in the box were discrete, non-discretionary acts that required little independent judgment and thus are not immune | Respondents: Actions were part of snow-and-ice removal and involved weighing safety, timeliness, and resource options—hence discretionary | Court: Recruitment was discretionary—part of snow-removal decisions that required balancing multiple factors; official immunity applies |
| Whether Kendall’s decision to drive with Igou standing in the box was discretionary | Igou: Driving with a volunteer in the box was a ministerial, discrete act requiring care, not protected discretion | Respondents: Same as above—decision arose from snow-removal operational judgment | Court: Driving with Igou was discretionary and within scope of snow-removal decision-making; immunity applies |
| Whether the willful-or-malicious exception to official immunity applies | Igou: Kendall knew auger risk and that Igou was untrained, so conduct was willful/malicious and outside immunity | Respondents: No bad faith or intent to violate a known right; conduct was an effort to address hazardous road conditions | Held: No evidence of willful or malicious conduct; objective reasonableness supports immunity |
| Whether the township is vicariously liable (vicarious official immunity) | Igou: If Kendall is not protected, township is liable | Township: As employer of an immune official, township is entitled to vicarious immunity | Held: Because Kendall is entitled to official immunity, township is entitled to vicarious official immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Elwood v. County of Rice, 423 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1988) (tests for discretionary vs. ministerial duties)
- Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004) (identify specific conduct at issue for immunity analysis)
- Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 1998) (official immunity standard)
- Alexandria Accident of Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d (Minn. App.) (plow-driver decisions in snow removal can be discretionary)
- Shariss v. City of Bloomington, 852 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. App. 2014) (discrete acts during plowing may be ministerial and not immune)
- Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2014) (framework for discretionary/ministerial/willful analysis)
- Kariniemi v. City of Rockford, 882 N.W.2d 593 (Minn. 2016) (willful-or-malicious exception to official immunity)