Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 43120,43120 |
| Parties | Chester HOFFERT et al., Appellants, v. OWATONNA INN TOWNE MOTEL, INC., defendant and third-party plaintiff, Appellant, v. THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC., et al., third-party defendants, City of Owatonna, third-party defendant, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Minn.St. 466.02, which removed from municipalities the defense of immunity from tort liability for acts performed in the exercise of a governmental or proprietary function, did not create any new liabilities for the municipalities. Parties seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the negligence of a municipality must prove a breach of duty owed them in their individual capacity and not merely a breach of duty owed to the general public.
2. Building codes, building permits, and building inspections are devices for the protection of the general public and are not for the specific benefit of an individual. The issuance of a building permit does not make a municipality an insurer against defective construction.
John Walbran, Owatonna, for Hoffert and others.
Lasley, Anderson & Roehrdanz, Minneapolis, for Owatonna Inn Towne Motel.
Carroll, Cronan, Roth & Austin, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and KELLY, TODD, and MASON, JJ.
These actions arose out of a fire which occurred at the Owatonna Inn Towne Motel in December 1969. In one, Charles W. Mason as trustee seeks to recover for the wrongful death of Charles M. Mason. In the others Chester and Audrey Hoffert and Ronald and Marilyn Follmann seek damages for personal injuries. All suits name the motel as a defendant, and plaintiffs Hoffert also sued the city. In all actions the motel brought a third-party action against the city for indemnity or contribution on the theory that the plaintiffs' damages resulted from the city's negligence in issuing a building permit for remodeling of the motel in a manner which violated the city's building code. The third-party complaints and the complaint of plaintiffs Hoffert against the city were dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that the issuance of a building permit for construction which violated the building code of Owatonna did not create a cause of action against the city. We affirm.
In the summer of 1969, the motel management decided to make improvements on its property, including enclosures of certain areas. The proposal was submitted to the city of Owatonna. The premises were inspected by the building inspector and the city engineer and a building permit issued. Inspection was made during construction by the building inspector. On December 22, 1969, about 2 weeks after the final inspection, at about 2 a.m., a fire broke out in the motel. Plaintiffs Hoffert and Follmann and plaintiff Mason's decedent were quartered as guests. Plaintiffs Hoffert and Follmann allege they were trapped in the second story of the motel because of improper stairway enclosures constructed in violation of the building code, and plaintiff trustee claims that the decedent was similarly trapped. The motel gave proper notice of claim to the city under Minn.St. 466.05, but none of the plaintiffs properly served notice upon the city.
Prior to trial, the city of Owatonna made a motion to dismiss the Hoffert complaint and the motel's third-party complaints on the grounds that they failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. On February 27, 1971, the court granted the motion, and plaintiffs Hoffert and the motel appeal from its order.
Respondent raised the question of whether or not the order is appealable, but rather than properly moving to dismiss the appeal, it instead submitted the matter on briefs and oral argument. Therefore, we do not decide that issue.
1. Appellants contend that they are entitled to recover under the provisions of § 466.02 which, with certain exceptions, abolished the defense of immunity from tort liability for acts of municipalities performed in the exercise of a governmental or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffey v. City of Milwaukee
...the City and LeGrand direct our attention to Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, 201 So.2d 70 (Fla.1967); Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972), and Duran v. City of Tucson, 20 Ariz.App. 22, 509 P.2d 1059 (1973). In each of these jurisdictions, the rule ......
-
Benson v. Kutsch
...386 Mass. 801, 438 N.E.2d 51 (1982); Stemen v. Coffman, 92 Mich.App. 595, 285 N.W.2d 305 (1979); Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972); Fiduccia v. Summit Hill Constr. Co., 109 N.J.Super. 249, 262 A.2d 920 (1970); O'Connor v. City of New York, supra......
-
Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America
...to follow the rationale of cases discussed in Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, 201 So.2d 70 (Fla.1967); Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972); and Duran v. City of Tucson, 20 Ariz.App. 22, 509 P.2d 1059 (1973). The court in Coffey held that the imposi......
-
Cummins v. Lewis County
...89 Wash.2d at 676, 574 P.2d 1190 (citing Duran v. Tucson, 20 Ariz.App. 22, 509 P.2d 1059 (1973); Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972); Stigler v. Chicago, 48 Ill.2d 20, 268 N.E.2d 26 (1971)). These later Washington cases are sometimes collectively ......