The Minnesota Supreme Court recently granted review in Fritz v. City of Rochester, a case arising from a claim by a hockey coach who broke his ankle while skating at a city-owned ice rink. The Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the City of Rochester on the basis of recreational immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e. , which provides immunity for "any claim based upon the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased by the municipality that is intended or permitted to be used as a park, as an open area for recreational purposes, or for the provision of recreational services." There is a statutory exception to recreational immunity known as the "trespasser exception," under which courts ask: (1) whether the artificial condition is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm; (2) whether the landowner had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition; and (3) whether the danger is hidden or concealed from the trespasser. Under a line of published Court of Appeals decisions, the second element requires "actual knowledge," rather than a lower standard such as constructive knowledge. Notably, the Minnesota Supreme Court has never addressed this question, as it will now do in Fritz.

While Fritz involves a claim against a City, the case has the potential to significantly impact school districts, counties, and other governmental entities that open their property up to the public for recreational purposes. The Minnesota Association for Justice (the Plaintiff’s bar) has already petitioned and been granted leave to file an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff’s position. It is my understanding that the Minnesota Defense Lawyer’s Association (defense bar) will also be submitting a petition, and requests have been made to the State of Minnesota, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) to do the same.

It may be in the best interests of MSBA’s members, including the District, for MSBA to seek to participate in this case as an amicus curiae. Before MSBA can approve a request to petition to appear as amicus, it requires a formal request to do so from a member of MSBA. This policy makes sense, as it ensures that the advocacy work performed by MSBA is responsive to the desires and interests of its membership. It would not cost the District anything and would do a great service to the District and all Minnesota school districts for MSBA’s voice to be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court as it considers the issues presented in Fritz.

Here is a summary of what is being requested, and why:

• The Current Protection: Under current law, municipalities generally are not liable for injuries occurring in recreational areas unless it has "actual knowledge" of a specific, dangerous condition and failed to fix it or warn the public. "Actual knowledge" means the municipality knew about that specific problem, rather than just the idea that they should have known about it.
• The Legal Question: The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether this "actual knowledge" requirement is the right standard. The plaintiff in Fritz will argue that the standard should be lower. If the court decides to lower the standard from "actual knowledge," it could become much easier for people to sue school districts and other municipalities for injuries occurring on playgrounds and other areas of school property that are made available to the public for recreational use.
• The Goal: Tim Sullivan, one of the District’s attorneys at Ratwik, Roszak and Maloney, believes it is important for the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) to intervene as a "friend of the court" (amicus curiae) to advocate on behalf of school districts and explain how a ruling against the current standard could negatively impact school districts across the state.
• What is Needed: MSBA can only intervene if a member school district (like Owatonna) officially requests them to do so. It will not cost the District anything and the District’s name will not be commented to or associated with the brief submitted to the court, but it allows the MSBA to voice the concerns of school districts directly to the Supreme Court.