*1 KING, Relator, Robert G. OLMANSON, Respondent, David C.
v. v. MIDWEST, INC., and WOODSMAN COUNTY, LeSUEUR Shoreland Recre- Group, Insurance Auto-Owners Cooperative, ational Shoreland d/b/a Respondents, Country Club, Appellants. No. A03-629. Chiropractic Arts, Kenwood Intervenor. Supreme Court of Minnesota. No. A04-2071. March 2005. Supreme Court Minnesota. March 2005. King, pro appellant.
Robert E. se Swanton, Fitch, Johnson,
Karen Ruth
Larson, Walsh, Held, Minneapolis, Co., respondent.
Auto-Owners Ins.
ORDER files, all upon
Based records and herein,
proceedings
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
decision Compensation of the Workers’
Court of Appeals September filed
be, is, opin- the same affirmed without
ion. See Kempton, Hoff (Minn.1982) (summary disposi-
tions precedential have no value because
they do not commit the court to partic- point view,
ular doing no than more case).
establishing the law of the
BY THE COURT: Kathleen A. Blatz
/s/
Chief Justice *2 Phifer, Hunter,
Noel L. Gislason & L.L.P., Ulm, MN, appellant New Cooperative Recreational Shoreland d/b/a Country Shoreland Club. Carlson, Soldo, P. &
Thomas Carlson P.L.L.P., MN, for Heights, appel- Vadnais County. lant LeSueur Hunt, Kay King, Nord Robert J. Lorn- men, Nelson, P.A., Stageberg, Min- Cole & MN, neapolis, respondent. OPINION MEYER, Justice.
In this case we are asked decide 10-year repose pro- whether statute 1(a) vision in Minn.Stat. (2004), applies to claims for duty based on a landowner’s common-law maintain property. court of held that the appeals claims were not time-barred the statute. af-We firm.
Appellant
Coop-
Shoreland Recreational
(Shoreland)
operates
erative
owns and
golf
golf
18-hole
course with
holes on both
County
Road 21.
sides
LeSueur
Some-
prior
designed
time
Shoreland
golf
cart
County
built
culvert under
golfers
allow
golf
Road
access
course on both sides of the road. The
opening of the culvert is 5 feet wide and 7
high
top
feet
and the
of the culvert
is
edge
located 76 inches from the
pavement
County
on
Road 21. The east
by 2-by-4
side of the culvert is marked
posts
on iron
located above the cul-
board
opening. Appellant
County
vert
LeSueur
(the county) and
do not know
Shoreland
placed
when the barricade was
and who
placed
opening
judgment
it there. The culvert
on
immunity
based on
but reversed
County
un-
the west side of
Road
is
grant
summary
judgment based on
unguarded.
marked and
Shoreland ac-
repose,
statute of
holding that under
knowledges
it owns the
repose,
the statute of
duty
to warn is
located,
where the culvert is
and the coun-
inherent
in a
landowner’s
both to
ty acknowledges
prescrip-
that it holds a
inspect.
maintain and
Olmanson v. Le-
property,
tive easement over the
which
County,
Sueur
In early evening the afternoon and February respondent David C. *4 Olmanson with snowmobiling went friends I. Peter, in and around St. Minnesota. The This case comes before us on primarily snowmobilers rode on trails and appeal summary from judgment. ap On along county the ditches state and peal summary from judgment, we must roads, including County Road 21. On his determine whether there are genuine home,
way driving Olmanson was his fact, issues of material and whether the snowmobile the ditch on the east side of lower court erred in application its County Road 21. He decided to cross French, law. State Cooper v. 460 County from the ditch on the east side of 2, (Minn.1990); 4 see also Minn. R. Road 21 to the ditch on the west side. As P. Civ. 56.03. The construction of a stat he crossed the road and headed down the law, ute is a of which this court ditch, the edge snowmobile went off the of Ryan reviews de novo. v. ITT Ins. Life golf cart culvert and cul- struck the 126, (Minn.1990). Corp., 450 N.W.2d 128 vert’s side wall. Olmanson was thrown from injured. snowmobile determining When the meaning brought statute,
Olmanson claim of a guided we are by several county and Shoreland in Le- principles statutory construction. Our County county Sueur District Court. primary object The is to interpret and con summary and Shoreland moved for judg- struct laws so as to ascertain and effectu ment, arguing that the statute of ate the intention of legislature. improvements for to real property, Minn. Mankato Citizens Tel. Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, suit, 107, Stat. 111, barred Olmanson’s 275 Minn. 145 N.W.2d (1966); and that county neither the nor Shoreland 645.16 had a to warn entrants of the exis- When the words a statute are county tence of the culvert. The also clear and free from all ambiguity, this statutory immunity. claimed and official only plain court looks language. its The district court summary judg- denied v. Owens Water Gremlin 605 N.W.2d (Minn.2000). ment immunity based on and failure to If am statute is warn, but granted summary judgment biguous, the construction that con avoids based on the of repose. problems used, statute The court stitutional should be even appeals summary affirmed the denial of if such a construction is less natural. holder, parties 1. The have not made an issue of the the culvert as an we easement treat county's legal regard status as owner with county opin- aas owner in this purposes summary judg- the culvert for ion. Therefore, ment. because it retains control of (1) Bronson, golf cart completed Forslund culvert was State on Behalf of (Minn.1981). than more before Olmanson’s ac- (2) cident; improvement the culvert is an (2004), § 541.051 Statutes is Minnesota (3) to real property; Olmanson’s claim is injuries arising repose for out a statute of (4) culvert; against the owners improvements.2 per- of real Olmanson’s claim arises out of the defec- statutory language is as follows: tinent tive and unsafe condition of the culvert. (a) involved, Except where fraud is facts, contend, appellants Under these sub- contract, by any person no action 1(a) explicitly division bars Olmanson’s tort, damages or otherwise to recover claim. any injury property, per- real or injury Olmanson asserts that his sonal, bodily injury arose wrongful or for death, county negli- from the and Shoreland’s arising out of the defective and gence inspecting the culvert and then- unsafe condition of an resulting failure to notice that it was dan- any action for contri- property, nor gerous. argues Olmanson that had Shore- indemnity damages bution or sus- county properly inspected land and the injury, tained on account of the shall be culvert, they would have known that the against any person performing brought *5 commonly by roadside ditch was used design, planning, furnishing or the su- snowmobiles, materials, that the culvert created pervision, or observation of a dangerous condition it un- of im- because was construction or construction guarded and unmarked. property argues Olmanson provement to real or 1(c), “maintenance, that subdivision op- property the owner of the real more inspection” exception, eration or years discovery applies after of to than two * * * nor, preserve his claim. Specifically, Olmanson injury event shall such claims that exception preserves this a of action accrue more than ten cause duty common-law of reasonable care owed years completion after substantial by entrants, landowners to as evidenced construction.
the use of negligence terminology in the subdivision. (c) Nothing apply in this section shall damages resulting from actions agree in We with Olmanson’s maintenance, operation in the terpretation § of Minn.Stat. 541.051. It is property or of the real im- well established in jurisprudence our that provement against the owner or other a duty landowner has a use reasonable person in possession. safety care for the all upon of entrants § subd. 1. Louis, premises. Louis v. 636 N.W.2d 314, county (Minn.2001); argue Shoreland and the that the 318 Congdon, Pietila v. 1(a) language 328, (Minn.1985); of subdivision is clear and 362 N.W.2d 332-33 Pe Balach, unambiguous operates expressly terson v. 294 Minn. 199 639, They bar Olmanson’s claim. reason that N.W.2d 647 The landowner’s 2. explained, brought.” As this court has statute Goodyear "[a] of tion cannot be Hodder repose period bring- Co., starts the limitation 826, Tire & Rubber 426 N.W.2d 830 ing [completion an date action from the of of (Minn.1988). specifies Section 541.051 a lim- improvement], unlike a statute of limita- period barring years itation suit more than 10 injury. date tions which starts from the A completion after substantial of a real typical specify pre- statute of will a improvement. sumptive number of ac- which an
881
ond)
343A,
(1),
§
duty
reasonable care is modified accord
Torts
subsection
which
land,
expected
use of the
and the
“A
ing
possessor
states:
of land is not liable to
care,
duty
has a
of reasonable
entrant also
his
for physical
invitees
harm caused to
according to the circum
which varies
by any activity
them
or condition on the
the land.
stances under which he enters
land
danger
whose
is known or obvious to
Minn,
Peterson,
174,
294
at
199 N.W.2d at
them,
possessor
unless the
should antici-
However,
duty
the landowner’s
647.3
pate
despite
the harm
knowledge
such
or
duty
an ongoing
reasonable care includes
(Second)
obviousness.” Restatement
and maintain
to ensure
343A(1) (1965);
Dill,
§
Torts
Baber v.
on the landowner’s land are not
entrants
(Minn.1995)
493,
(citing
495-96
Pe-
harm.
exposed to unreasonable risks of
Co.,
terson v.
Rawleigh
W.T.
274 Minn.
Pietila,
332-33;
362 N.W.2d at
Conover v. 495, 496-97,
(1966)
555,
144 N.W.2d
557-58
Co.,
Northern
Power
States
(Sec-
(expressly approving Restatement
(Minn.1981) (owner
has
to ond)
343A)).
Generally,
of Torts
wheth-
warn).
inspect,
If dangerous conditions
presents
er a
a
condition
known or obvious
through
are discoverable
reasonable ef
See,
danger
is a
of fact.
e.g.,
forts,
repair
the landowner must either
the Louis,
(holding
The common-law
spect,
not
repair,
and warn is not absolute.
does
bar claims that this
(See-
breached,
adopted
This court has
Restatement
has been
because under
parties disagree
light
3. The
as to the entrant status
must view the facts in the
most favorable
Olmanson,
county
party against
of Olmanson. The
and Shoreland as-
whom the
trespasser,
summary judgment
granted.
sert that he was a
while Olmanson
motion for
Anderson,
398,
legally
claims that since
are
snowmobiles
en-
Lubbers
401
ditches,
(Minn.1995).
purposes
opinion,
titled to use roadside
he was a licen-
For
of this
then,
summary judgment,
see. In the context of
we
we consider Olmanson a licensee.
against any person
language of Minn.Stat.
involved with the de-
plain
1(e),
pos-
persons
sign, planning, supervision,
owners or other
or
observation
ordinary
construction,
lia-
retain their
landowner
performing
session
or
the con-
maintenance,
bility
negligent
operation,
property improvement
struction of a real
(hereafter
property improve-
of real
professionals)
construction
that
ments. We hold
the district court
years.
It
suppli-
made no reference to
granting summary judgment
erred
materials,
explicitly
ers of
and it
allowed
county
based
favor
Shoreland
exception for
owners of real
claim
on its conclusion
Olmanson’s
improvements: “This
shall not be
[section]
by
repose.
was barred
the statute of
applied
any person
favor of
in actual
owner, tenant,
possession and control as
or
county
argue
The
and Shoreland
* * *
otherwise
at the time the defective
they inspected
that because
and main
and unsafe conditions of such
adequate
culvert in a
tained the
manner
proximate
inju-
constitutes the
cause of the
tunnel,
golf
they
for its use as a
cart
* *
ry
*.” Id.
negligent inspec
cannot be held liable for
We first examined the statute in Kittson
by
tion or
an unin
maintenance caused
Wells,
Associates,
County v.
Denbrook &
agree
tended use. We
with this basic
Inc.,
308 Minn.
not
premise but do
conclude as a matter of
time,
At that
this court concluded that its
law that the
use
the land for
snowmo
apparently
legislative
enactment was
re-
bile trail was an
Rath
“unintended use.”
privity
action to the erosion of the
of con-
er,
this is a fact
to be left for
doctrine,
tract
greatly
which threatened to
determination
the fact finder.
liability
expand
profes-
of construction
II.
sionals. Id. at
883 7, 1980, 518, 2-4, §§ ch. April the store tenant 1980 Minn. percent negligent, ler 80 595-96; negligent, City Crys- and the furnace ser- Laws see Colder v. percent 10 (Minn.1982). negligent. tal, 838, Id. vicing company percent 10 842-43 session, trial court found that at 552. The legislature In the same added property improve- furnace was not a real what is now section subdivision ment, 541.051 and that therefore section 1(c), excepting negligent claims mainte- Id. at The servic- inapplicable. was 553. nance, operation, inspection against ing company appealed. Id. persons pos- owner and other protection session from the of the statute.
This court first held that the furnace 7, 1980, 2-4, §§ April Act of ch. property improvement pur was a real Minn. 595-96. A Laws later amendment poses 541.051. Id. at 554. of section period pres- shortened the limitation to its Next, legislature this court noted that the classes, years. of 10 ent duration may separate “[ljegisla- create but apply uniformly must to tive classifications situated, persons similarly
all who are brings This us to the at separate the distinctions which those who hand. Does the 1980 amendment and our are included within a classification from reading of it in I Section create the same natural those who are not must be profes classification between construction reasonable, arbitrary.” not fanciful and sionals and owners that was found to be Talmo, (citing at 555 Id. Schwartz Indemnity? unconstitutional in Pacific Minn. N.W.2d Indemnity We think not. In we Pacific (1973)). Otherwise, the classification fails held that it irrational give statute of equal protection grounds. Noting on that repose protection against for claims con majority upheld a of states had consti professionals denying struction while tutionality equal pro of similar statutes on protection to landowners. did not con We grounds,4 tection this court nonetheless de clude that all claims construction position termined that the reasoned better professionals and landowners must be “is embodied the decisions which hold identically treated in order to withstand such statutes to be unconstitutional be equal protection challenge. an As dis they immunity grant cause from suit to above, per cussed landowners and other defendants, without certain class there possession historically of land have sons being a reasonable basis for that classifica liable for claims that arise from their been Indem. at tion.” Pacific land; i.e., obligation in the possession 555. premises. maintain inspect professionals
In
the Minnesota
re- Construction
who have relin
sponded
Indemnity by
quished
amend-
control of the land do not have
Pacific
premises.
and maintain the
*8
ing
property
section 541.051 add
owners
suppliers
pro-
possessors,
to the class
and
not construction
and materials
Owners
by
repose
professionals,
obligated
statute of
for claims
are
to
and
tected
the
design
premises
of
and construction defects. Act of maintain the
once construction is
decided,
Co.,
Indemnity
grounds.
4. At the time
Sedar v. Knowlton Const.
Pacific
upheld
10 states had
construction statutes of
Ohio St.3d
551 N.E.2d
repose, while five states had struck them
(other than
The Sedar court listed five states
Indem.,
down.
provements.
defective and unsafe conditions of such
Affirmed.
improvement
proximate
constitutes the
injury
cause of the
pro-
for which it is
ANDERSON, BARRY, J„
G.
took no
posed
bring
an action.
part in
or
the consideration
decision of this
case.
Indem.
PAGE,
(dissenting).
Justice
(1976)).
I respectfully disagree with the court’s
pertinent part
of the statute that we
holding
plain language
that the
of Minn.
today
construe
reads:
1(c)
(2004),
pre-
Stat.
serves a landowner’s or land possessor’s
(a) Except
involved,
where fraud is
no
liability
improvements
common law
by any
contract, tort,
action
person
or
10-year
real
after the
time limit
damages
otherwise
recover
for any
1(a)
passed.
set out
subdivision
has
injury to property, real or
or
personal,
bodily injury
death,
wrongful
or
aris-
Indemnity
In
Co. v. Thompson-
Pacific
ing out
con-
Inc.,
(Minn.1977),
Yaeger,
n t n
legis-
ascertaining
In
the intention
the
(c)
apply
in
shall
Nothing
this section
may
guided
the courts
be
the
lature
resulting from
damages
to actions
following presumptions:
maintenance, operation
in
negligence
the
(3)
legislature
the
does not intend to
im-
property
of the real
inspection
or
of the
violate the Constitution
United
other
the owner or
provement against
state;
States or of this
person
possession.
(4) when a court of last resort has
law,
language of a
the
construed the
(c) (2004)
541.051,
1(a),
§
subd.
Minn.Stat.
legislature
subsequent
laws on the
added).
(emphasis
subject matter intends the same
same
we construe statutes:
When
placed upon such lan-
construction to be
guage.
object
interpretation
of all
have also
Minn.Stat.
645.17
We
laws is to ascertain and
construction of
construing
the statute of
said
when
legisla-
the
the intention of
effectuate
repose,
give
we “strive to
effect to the
construed, if
Every
shall be
ture.
law
plain meaning of the words of the statute
all its
possible,
give
provi-
effect to
legal
to technical
construc-
without resort
sions.
tions of its terms.”
Indem.
Pacific
the words of a law
their
When
erty’s way, Put another the excep- owner. In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY AC- “maintenance, applies opera- tion to the VAUGHT, TION AGAINST Samuel M. tion, the real Attorney, Registration a Minnesota completion after improvement” and not to No. 131519. and unsafe the “defective condition” of the No. improvement completed. Reading as sub- A04-1438. 1(c) conjunction with
division subdivision Supreme Court of Minnesota. 1(a), it is clear that the intend- only ed to hold an owner liable for those March 2005. changes property improvement to the real negligent from the owner’s arise ac- improve- tions the construction of the completed ment is and not for those condi- already in
tions existence at the time the
improvement substantially completed.
Simply put, respect with to the defective existing unsafe conditions at the sub- construction, completion
stantial owners
enjoy statutory protection the same as professionals.
construction Applying our construction, statutory
rules of other 541.051, 1(c),
reading of Minn.Stat. subd. 1(a) meaningless,
would render subdivision holding
violate our Indemnity, Pacific statutory and render the scheme unconsti-
tutional.
Thus, extent that Olmanson’s injuries
claim is that his arose out of the
defective and unsafe condition of the cul- constructed,
vert as his claim is barred 1(a), because us record before establishes that the alleged
culvert’s defective and unsafe con-
dition was inherent in the culvert’s con-
struction and existed at the time of the completion
culvert’s substantial and be-
cause the to the proper-
ty, culvert, was substantially completed
more than 10 before Olmanson’s would, therefore, I
snowmobile accident. appeals’
reverse the court of decision and
reinstate trial grant court’s of sum-
mary judgment in favor appellants.