§
Subdivision 1.Notice required.
Except as provided in subdivision 2, every person, whether plaintiff, defendant or third-party plaintiff or defendant, who claims damages from any municipality or municipal employee acting within the scope of employment for or on account of any loss or injury within the scope of section 466.02 shall cause to be presented to the governing body of the municipality within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury is discovered a notice stating the time, place and circumstances thereof, the names of the municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded. Actual notice of sufficient facts to reasonably put the governing body of the municipality or its insurer on notice of a possible claim shall be construed to comply with the notice requirements of this section. Failure to state the amount of compensation or other relief demanded does not invalidate the notice; but in such case, the claimant shall furnish full information regarding the nature and extent of the injuries and damages within 15 days after demand by the municipality. The time for giving such notice does not include the time, during which the person injured is incapacitated by the injury from giving the notice.
§
Subd. 2.Claims for wrongful death; notice.
When the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission, the notice may be presented by the personal representative, surviving spouse, or next of kin, or the consular officer of the foreign country of which the deceased was a citizen, within one year after the alleged injury or loss resulting in such death; if the person for whose death the claim is made has presented a notice that would have been sufficient had the person lived an action for wrongful death may be brought without any additional notice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
53
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case:
Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1979).
Kossak v. Stalling, 277 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1979).
· cites it 15× “1971, § 466.05. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order.”
Glassman v. Miller, 356 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 23× “They named Beltrami County as a defendant, but did not serve a notice of claim on the county as provided by Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (1982). The trial court granted the county's motion to dismiss.”
O'Brien v. Mercy Hosp. & Convalescent Nursing Care Section, 382 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 40× “The trial court granted the county's motion for dismissal, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to give notice as required by Minn.Stat. § 466.05, subds. 1, 3 (1984). The plaintiff appealed this order to the Court of Appeals.”
Nisbet v. Hennepin Cnty., 548 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 24× “Appellant argues that the district court erred in its application of law by concluding that respondent is protected by official immunity and that appellant’s claim is barred because appellant failed to comply with the notice requirement of Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (1994). I. The…”
Naylor v. Minnesota Daily, 342 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 12× “Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (1982). There is, however, one most notable exclusion.”
Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “1a (2004)); (2) it required that a notice of claim be given within 180 days after loss or within 1 year for wrongful death (Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (2004)); (3) it authorized the municipality to procure insurance against liability, including that for liability of "its officers,…”
Montgomery v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Minnesota 2000).
· cites it 6× “Thus, in arguing that plaintiffs MDHR charges only included harassment during 1995 defendant ignores important parts of the administrative record.”
Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “In Kossak , we struck down the one-year statute of limitations provided for in the Municipal Tort Liability Act, Minn.Stat. § 466.05, subd. 3 (1971), for denying equal protection of the laws.”
Steven J. Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, Franklin Fin., LLC, 884 N.W.2d 601 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2d 265, 268 (1975) (holding that only substantial compliance was required with the notice-of-claim requirements in Minn. Stat. § 466.05 , subd. 1 (2014)). These concepts, however similar they may sound, are not the same.”
Hage v. Stade, 304 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 4× “1979) (declaring unconstitutional the commencement-of-suit requirement contained in Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (1978). [5] Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288 (1965), a statute cannot be the basis of a negligence action if it is intended to protect the public exclusively.”
McCaleb v. Jackson, 239 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1976).
· cites it 5× “1971, § 466.05. Plaintiff was injured on December 15, 1972, when she slipped on a snow-covered cellar door and fell through that door on premises owned by the authority and rented by defendant Dora Jackson.”
— Minn. Stat. § 466.05(1) — 1 case
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.