Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n, No. C5-01-1157

• Decision Date: 03 July 2002
• Docket Number: No. C4-01-1165., No. C5-01-1157
• Citation: 646 N.W.2d 235
• Parties: Andrew Scott KASTNER, Respondent, Eric Nelson, Respondent, v. STAR TRAILS ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota Not For Profit association, Petitioner, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

646 N.W.2d 235

Andrew Scott KASTNER, Respondent, Eric Nelson, Respondent, v. STAR TRAILS ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota Not For Profit association, Petitioner, Appellant.

Nos. C5-01-1157, C4-01-1165.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 2002.

Abrams & Smith, P.A., Paul R. Smith, Lauris A. Heyerdahl, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A., Sharon L. Van Dyck, James G. Weinmeyer, for Kastner, respondent.

Alan R. Nettles & Associates, P.A., Alan R. Nettles, for Nelson, respondent.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

STRINGER, Justice.

Andrew Scott Kastner and Eric Nelson (collectively "respondents"¹) were injured in separate snowmobile accidents on trails constructed and maintained by Star Trails Association (appellant). Their ensuing lawsuits were joined for the purpose of pretrial proceedings, and in April 2001, appellant moved for summary judgment in both cases claiming recreational use immunity under Minn.Stat. §§ 604A.20-.27 (2000) and municipal immunity under Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (2000). In a May 11, 2001 order, the district court denied appellant's motion concluding that the partial immunities provided by the cited statutes did not apply to appellant. Appellant's motion for certification of the immunity question as important and doubtful for purposes of appellate review was denied. Appellant nevertheless appealed and the court of appeals concluded that the May 11 order was not immediately appealable and dismissed the consolidated appeals. We reverse and remand.

The underlying facts are not at issue for purposes of this appeal. On January 6, 1996 and January 24, 1999, respectively, respondents Nelson and Kastner were seriously injured while riding on the Star Trail snowmobile trail in Washington County. Both accidents occurred in approximately the same place on the portion of the Star Trail that traverses the property of Art Schaefer, a landowner who has permitted the county to use part of his field for a snowmobile route since 1976. Respondents filed personal injury suits alleging negligence on the part of appellant, the organization responsible for the maintenance and grooming of the snowmobile trail.

Appellant, a nonprofit organization formed to promote snowmobiling, obtained funding for the development of the Star Trail snowmobile trail through the Minnesota Trail Assistance Program (MTAP). The MTAP, also known as the grants-in-aid or GIA program,² is administered by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and is a cost-sharing program authorizing trail user clubs or organizations to work in conjunction with a sponsoring local unit of government to establish and maintain trails in their area. In accordance with the MTAP guidelines, appellant received sponsorship from Washington County.

Appellant moved for summary judgment in both suits claiming it was entitled to recreational use immunity under Minn. Stat. §§ 604A.22 and 604A.25 (2000). Section 604A.22 provides:

Except as provided in section 604A.25, an owner³ who gives written or oral permission for the use of the land for recreational purposes⁴ without charge:

(1) owes no duty of care to render or maintain the land safe for entry or use by other persons for recreational purpose;

(2) owes no duty to warn those persons of any dangerous condition on the land, whether patent or latent;

(3) owes no duty of care toward those persons except to refrain from willfully taking action to cause injury; and

(4) owes no duty to curtail use of the land during its use for recreational purpose.

Appellant asserts that it qualifies as an "owner" under the language of the statute because it was the "occupant" or party "in control of the land" at the time the accidents occurred. See Minn.Stat. § 604A.21, subd. 4. Section 604A.25 provides:

Except as set forth in this section, nothing in sections 604A.20 to 604A.27 limits liability that otherwise exists:

(1) for conduct which, at law, entitles a trespasser to maintain an action and obtain relief for the conduct complained of; * * * *

Except for conduct set forth in section 604A.22, clause (3), a person may not maintain an action and obtain relief at law for conduct referred to by clause (1) in this section if the entry upon the land is incidental to or arises from access granted for the recreational trail use of land dedicated, leased, or permitted by the owners for recreational trail use.

Appellant also asserted governmental immunity, as provided in Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e. Section 466.03, limiting the liability of municipalities, includes the following within its list of claims for which a municipality "shall be immune from liability":

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, or from any claim based on the clearing of land, removal of refuse, and creation of trails or paths without artificial surfaces, if the claim arises from a loss incurred by a user of park and recreation property or services. Nothing in this subdivision limits the liability of a municipality for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person.

Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e. Although specifically referencing municipalities, appellant claims that this immunity is applicable here because Minn.Stat. § 84.83, subd. 4(a) (2000) provides:

Recipients of Minnesota trail assistance program funds must be afforded the same protection and be held to the same standard of liability as a political subdivision under chapter 466 * * *.

On May 11, 2001, the district court denied appellant's summary judgment motion on the basis that although the cited statutes do establish a diminished standard of care for municipalities with regard to injuries occurring on municipal property designated for public recreational use, and this partial immunity is extended to private property owners who open their land for such use, appellant was not an "owner."⁵ The court later denied appellant's motion to certify the question of immunity as important and doubtful for purposes of appellate review pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(h),⁶ concluding the question was neither important nor doubtful.

Appellant sought review in the court of appeals of the May 11, 2001 order denying summary judgment arguing that it was entitled to interlocutory review on the issue of immunity. The court of appeals, citing its decision in Harvey v. Dots, Inc., 561 N.W.2d 192 (Minn.App.1997), dismissed the appeal concluding that although governmental entities are allowed an immediate appeal when a district court denies an immunity-based summary judgment motion, nongovernmental entities are not. We granted review.

Whether the district court's May 11 order denying respondent's immunity-based summary judgment motion is immediately appealable requires construction of a procedural rule, see Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co., 605 N.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Minn.2000),

and is therefore a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Nerz, 587 N.W.2d 23, 24-25 (Minn.1998).

Generally, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not immediately appealable unless the district court certifies that the question is important and doubtful. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(i); McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Minn.1995). But certain orders are immediately appealable under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(j), even absent an important and doubtful certification. In these cases, the right to appeal is derived not from procedural rules, but from fundamental principles relating to the finality of judgments. See In re State & Regents Bldg. Asbestos Cases, 435 N.W.2d 521, 522 (Minn.1989)

. For example, we have held that interlocutory appeal is available for review of orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and government immunity. See, e.g., Hunt v. Nevada State Bank, 285 Minn. 77, 88-91, 172 N.W.2d 292, 299-301 (1969); McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 832-33; Anderson v. City of Hopkins, 393 N.W.2d 363, 364 (1986).⁷ A limitation has been placed on governmental immunity appeals under the court of appeals ruling in Harvey however, denying nongovernmental entities the right to immediate appellate review of an order denying an immunity-based motion for summary judgment. 561 N.W.2d at 195. We do not believe immediate appellate review should be denied on this basis, however.

Appellant claims limited liability protection under Minn.Stat. § 84.83, subd. 4(a), entitling recipients of MTAP funds to "the same protection and * * * standard of liability as a political subdivision under chapter 466." This "protection," appellant asserts, should include the availability of immediate review of a court determination denying an immunity-based summary judgment motion, just as review would be available to a governmental entity under Anderson. Appellant argues that regardless of its nongovernmental status, subjecting it to a trial renders its right to immunity meaningless and therefore it should have a right to immediate review.

While respondent Kastner agrees that section 84.83, subd. 4 is applicable to appellant, he argues that the statutory language using the terms "protection" and "standard of liability" cannot be stretched to confer political subdivision status upon appellant such that it is entitled to immediate appellate review on the issue of governmental immunity under Anderson. Further, respondent argues, Minn.Stat. § 466.03—providing exceptions to the tort liability outlined in Minn.Stat. § 466.02 (2000)—pertains specifically to immunity from liability, not immunity from suit, and immunity from liability intertwines with the merits of respondents' underlying actions. Therefore appellant has no right to be free from trial.

Despite these...