Lloyd v. City of St. Paul
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
Appellants challenge the district court’s reliance on Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (1994) (recreational services immunity), as a basis for dismissing tort claims and awarding summary judgment to the City of St. Paul. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants Thomas Lloyd and his wife were seated with their niece in a paddle boat at the Como Lake paddle boat concession in St. Paul when the chief supervisor at the concession jumped onto one of the boat’s pontoons in an attempt to disengage the boat from the dock. When the boat began to tip, the supervisor leaped to the opposite pontoon,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Hubred v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Lienhard v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Snyder v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Imlay v. City of Lake CrystalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Prokop v. Independent School Dist. No. 625Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Habeck v. OuversonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Merchlewitz v. Midwest 4 Wheel Drive Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999