Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 169.17 (2026)
Emergency Vehicle
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The speed limitations set forth in sections 169.14 to 169.17 do not apply to an authorized emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call. Drivers of all emergency vehicles shall sound an audible signal by siren and display at least one lighted red light to the front, except that law enforcement vehicles shall sound an audible signal by siren or display at least one lighted red light to the front. This provision does not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of persons using the street, nor does it protect the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Kari v. City of Maplewood, 582 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 1998).
Kari v. City of Maplewood, 582 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 1998). “" Minn.Stat. § 169.17 (1996). In 1994, at the time of Kari's injury, there were no other specific exemptions from traffic regulations for emergency vehicles.”
Blatz v. Allina Health Sys., 622 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). “Minn.Stat. § 169.17 (2000). Relying on the distinction demonstrated by Kaiser , we conclude that when paramedics furnish medical treatment to a patient, a medical or professional standard of care should apply.”
Nisbet v. Hennepin Cnty., 548 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). “In arguing that official immunity does not apply to emergency vehicles, appellant cites Minn.Stat. § 169.17, which provides: The speed limitations set forth in sections 169.”
Pletan v. Gaines, 460 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “Minn. Stat. § 169.17 (1988). “[Liability arising out of the operation of emergency vehicles is predicated upon negligence.”
Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1963). “That case does not control here since §§ 169.17 and 169.20 specifically exempted the emergency vehicle driver there from compliance with speed and right-of-way requirements, but the Highway Traffic Regulation Act has no provision exempting the driver of such a vehicle from…”
Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1992). “2, and § 169.17. The issue, however, is not about how a police car should be driven during a pursuit, but whether a pursuit should have been undertaken in the first place or discontinued at some point after being undertaken.”
Holthusen v. United States, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Minnesota 2007). “” Minn.Stat. § 169.17; see also Minn.Stat. § 169.”
Nadeau v. Melin, 110 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. 1961). “) § 169.17. “The speed limitations set forth in sections 169.”
Cummins v. Klenk, 474 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). “It is not disputed that Klenk was driving a Washington County Sheriff’s squad car properly equipped and identified and that he used his siren and red lights as required by Minn.Stat. §§ 169.17 and 169.20, subd. 5.”
Travis v. Collett, 16 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 169.17 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 2720-181), where emergency vehicles are excepted from the speed limitations of the statute.”
Gholamreza Kian, Tr. for the Next of Kin of Sean Kian, Decedent v. City of Minnetonka (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “03, subdivision 2 (2014), Minnesota Statutes section 169.17 (2014), and Minnetonka Police Department Policy Manual Directive 305 (Minnetonka Police Directive 305) create a discretionary yet mandatory duty for Officer Aschenbrener to operate his police car with due regard for…”
Michael John Frank v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “Minn. Stat. § 169.17 (2014). Here, the officer was responding to what he believed to be a risk to the public, so he was not required to adhere to the speed limit.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.