Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 466.02 (2026)

Tort Liability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the limitations of sections 466.01 to 466.15, every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 152 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] "[E]very municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.”

Sletten v. Ramsey Cnty., 675 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 8× “When this court considered whether to apply immunity to a nuisance claim prior to the 1963 adoption of Minn.Stat. § 466.02 (2002) (Municipal Tort Liability), it applied it.”

Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 4× “Section 466.02 does not apply to any claim enumerated in this section.”

Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 4× “Whether the acts of the City’s employees are a discretionary function is a legal question, thus, on review, we give no deference to conclusions of the courts below. See A.J. Chromy Const. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.”

Watson v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 553 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. §§ 466.02, .03, subd. 6 (1994).”

Jane Doe 175, a minor, by her mother & Nat. guardian, Mother Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., ISD No. 13, Christopher Lloyd Warnke, 873 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “§ 466.02. Instead, the district -court determined that the school district was immune from vicarious liability under MinmStat.”

Cnty. of Washington v. City of Oak Park Heights, 818 N.W.2d 533 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 4× “10, at 132 (3d ed. 1993) (“To mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, the judiciary and state legislatures developed exceptions to the rule.”

Schaffer v. Spirit Mountain Rec. Area Auth., 541 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “Minn.Stat. § 466.02 (1994). The statute provides: Subject to the limitations of sections 466.”

Hage v. Stade, 304 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “* * * * * * The distinction between governmental and proprietary functions as applied by the Court in Hitchcock, Stevens and Roerig , was explicitly abolished by the Minnesota Legislature in 1963 when it enacted section 466.02 of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act * * *.”

Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine, 471 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “Fire Department’s Liability This case is governed by Minn.Stat. § 466.02 (1984) regarding municipal tort liability.”

Conlin v. City of Saint Paul, 605 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 4× “This is an exception to the general rule that "every municipality is subject to liability for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function.”

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 700 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “The city argues that it is entitled to statutory immunity because the city's decision to own, maintain, and use police dogs is a discretionary one entitled to protection under Minn.Stat. §§ 466.02, 446.03, subd. 6 (2002) (providing that cities are immune from claims "based upon…”

Show all 152 citing cases →

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.