Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: April 4, 2008 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of April 4, 2008, the Minnesota appellate courts released an opinion on the following topic that may be of interest to our clients:
RECREATIONAL-LAND-USE STATUTE, MINN. STAT. § 604A.20-207 – LANDOWNER LIABILITY – IMMUNITY
- Minn. Stat. § 604A.20-207 provides immunity from liability only if the landowner gave oral or written permission for use of the land for a recreational purpose.
- In order to recover under a negligence theory, an injured trespasser must establish that a person who creates or maintains a structure or artificial condition on land should have recognized that it created an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Plaintiff brought suit against a development company (“Ocello”), its real estate agent (“Pfeffer”), and parties with an option to purchase the property at issue (“the Krutzigs”), after he was injured when he struck a sign on the property while snowmobiling. Pfeffer had erected the original sign, which advertised the lots for sale. After the Krutzigs entered into an option to purchase the lots, they replaced the message on the sign Pfeffer had erected with a message advertising their future development of the property, but the sign continued to use the existing metal sign posts placed in the ground by Pfeffer.
The defendants contended they were unaware of the snowmobile trail, and none had given written or oral permission for anyone to use the property as a recreational trail. The district court granted Ocello’s motion to dismiss, concluding Ocello was immune from liability under the Recreational-Land-Use Statute, Minn. Stat. § 604A.20-207, which grants immunity to landowners who give “written or oral permission for the use of the land for recreational purposes without charge.”
Similarly, the district court granted Pfeffer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that as Ocello’s agent he owed no greater duty of care than did his principal. Summary judgment was also granted to the Krutzigs, as the court found as owners of the sign they too were entitled to immunity under § 604A.25. Alternatively, the district court found that the Kurtzigs could not foresee any risk of injury created by the sign and had therefore not breached a duty to the plaintiff.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment as to Ocello and Pfeffer. Although the court did not directly decide the issue of whether the Krutzigs were “landowners” under the statute by virtue of owning the sign, the court concluded that because no party had given written or oral permission to use the land, none of the defendants were able to use the immunity shield.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, the grant of summary judgment for the Kurtzigs, concluding as a matter of law that they had no knowledge of the trail at any time before the accident or otherwise could have foreseen that the sign created an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The case was remanded to the district court for a determination as to whether Ocello or Pfeffer breached a duty to plaintiff, as the record was undeveloped about their prior knowledge of the trail use and whether they created or maintained a structure or artificial condition of the land which they should have recognized created an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Razink v. Krutzig, A07-0389, (Minn. Ct. App. 4/1/08).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, |
Writer this Week: |