§
Subdivision 1.Findings; I-35W bridge.
The legislature finds that the collapse of the Interstate Highway 35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007, was a catastrophe of historic proportions. The bridge was the third busiest in the state, carrying over 140,000 cars per day. Its collapse killed 13 people and injured more than 100. No other structure owned by this state has ever fallen with such devastating physical and psychological impact on so many.
§
Subd. 2.Compensation process.
The establishment of a compensation process under sections 3.7391 to 3.7395 for survivors of the catastrophe furthers the public interest by providing a remedy for survivors while avoiding the uncertainty and expense of potentially complex and protracted litigation to resolve the issue of the liability of the state, a municipality, or their employees for damages incurred by survivors.
§
Subd. 3.Not an admission of liability.
These findings are not an admission of liability of the state, a municipality, or their employees for damages caused by the catastrophe.
Notes of Decisions
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 806 N.W.2d 820 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 3.7391. Significantly, the Legislature deemed that it was in the public interest to establish a “compensation process” that would provide a *828 remedy for survivor-claimants that avoids the uncertainty of litigation “to resolve the issue of the liability of the…”
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 806 N.W.2d 811 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In 2008, the Legislature passed the compensation statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 3.7391 -.7395 (2010), to compensate “survivors” of the collapse.”
First Class Valet Servs., LLC v. Gleason, 892 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. §§ 3.7391 -.7395 (2016). As the district court noted in rejecting this argument by First Class, applying this “other law” exception to a second-stage indemnification between an employer and an employee would “eviscerate the clearly articulated and broad duty to.”
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.