From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 19, 1972
293 Minn. 220 (Minn. 1972)

Summary

holding that building permits and inspections "are not meant to be an insurance policy by which the municipality guarantees that each building is built in compliance with the building codes and zoning codes"

Summary of this case from McNamara v. McLean

Opinion

No. 43120.

May 19, 1972.

Municipal corporations — negligence action against municipality — proof required.

1. Minn. St. 466.02, which removed from municipalities the defense of immunity from tort liability for acts performed in the exercise of a governmental or proprietary function, did not create any new liabilities for the municipalities. Parties seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the negligence of a municipality must prove a breach of duty owed them in their individual capacity and not merely a breach of duty owed to the general public.

Same — building codes, permits, and inspections — purpose.

2. Building codes, building permits, and building inspections are devices for the protection of the general public and are not for the specific benefit of an individual. The issuance of a building permit does not make a municipality an insurer against defective construction.

Three actions in the Steele County District Court arising out of a fire at an establishment maintained by defendant Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc. One was brought by Chester and Audrey Hoffert for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the fire; one was brought by Charles W. Mason as trustee for the heirs of Charles D. Mason, who died in the fire; and one by Ronald Follmann and Marilyn Follmann for their personal injuries. Plaintiffs Hoffert amended their complaint to include a claim against the city of Owatonna, and defendant motel filed a third-party complaint in each action against said city. The court, Urban J. Steimann, Judge, granted the motion of third-party defendant for an order dismissing the complaints against it, and plaintiffs Hoffert and defendant motel appealed from said order. Affirmed.

John Walbran, for appellants Hoffert.

Lasley, Anderson Roehrdanz and W. M. Lasley, for appellant motel.

Carroll, Cronan, Roth Austin and Robert M. Austin, for respondent.

Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Kelly, Todd, and Mason, JJ.


These actions arose out of a fire which occurred at the Owatonna Inn Towne Motel in December 1969. In one, Charles W. Mason as trustee seeks to recover for the wrongful death of Charles D. Mason. In the others Chester and Audrey Hoffert and Ronald and Marilyn Follmann seek damages for personal injuries. All suits name the motel as a defendant, and plaintiffs Hoffert also sued the city. In all actions the motel brought a third-party action against the city for indemnity or contribution on the theory that the plaintiffs' damages resulted from the city's negligence in issuing a building permit for remodeling of the motel in a manner which violated the city's building code. The third-party complaints and the complaint of plaintiffs Hoffert against the city were dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that the issuance of a building permit for construction which violated the building code of Owatonna did not create a cause of action against the city. We affirm.

In the summer of 1969, the motel management decided to make improvements on its property, including enclosures of certain areas. The proposal was submitted to the city of Owatonna. The premises were inspected by the building inspector and the city engineer and a building permit issued. Inspection was made during construction by the building inspector. On December 22, 1969, about 2 weeks after the final inspection, at about 2 a. m., a fire broke out in the motel. Plaintiffs Hoffert and Follmann and plaintiff Mason's decedent were quartered as guests. Plaintiffs Hoffert and Follmann allege they were trapped in the second story of the motel because of improper stairway enclosures constructed in violation of the building code, and plaintiff trustee claims that the decedent was similarly trapped. The motel gave proper notice of claim to the city under Minn. St. 466.05, but none of the plaintiffs properly served notice upon the city.

Prior to trial, the city of Owatonna made a motion to dismiss the Hoffert complaint and the motel's third-party complaints on the grounds that they failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. On February 27, 1971, the court granted the motion, and plaintiffs Hoffert and the motel appeal from its order.

Respondent raised the question of whether or not the order is appealable, but rather than properly moving to dismiss the appeal, it instead submitted the matter on briefs and oral argument. Therefore, we do not decide that issue.

1. Appellants contend that they are entitled to recover under the provisions of § 466.02 which, with certain exceptions, abolished the defense of immunity from tort liability for acts of municipalities performed in the exercise of a governmental or proprietary function. Although discretionary acts are excepted from that section by § 466.03, subd. 6, the city admits that by acquiring liability insurance under § 466.06, it has waived this exception. However, these statutory provisions merely removed the defense of immunity. They did not create any new liability for a municipality. In order to recover against the city, appellants must show a breach of some duty owed them in their individual capacities and not merely a breach of some obligation owed the general public.

2. The purpose of a building code is to protect the public. This is well stated in 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3 ed.) § 24.507, p. 523:

"* * * The enactment and enforcement of building codes and ordinances constitute a governmental function. The primary purpose of such codes and ordinances is to secure to the municipality as a whole the benefits of a well-ordered municipal government, or, as sometimes expressed, to protect the health and secure the safety of occupants of buildings, and not to protect the personal or property interests of individuals."

Building codes, the issuance of building permits, and building inspections are devices used by municipalities to make sure that construction within the corporate limits of the municipality meets the standards established. As such, they are designed to protect the public and are not meant to be an insurance policy by which the municipality guarantees that each building is built in compliance with the building codes and zoning codes. The charge for building permits is to offset expenses incurred by the city in promoting this public interest and is in no way an insurance premium which makes the city liable for each item of defective construction in the premises.

This court in Roerig v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 231, 235, 175 N.W. 542, 544 (1919), held that a building inspector acts exclusively for the benefit of the public. The act performed is only for public benefit, and an individual who is injured by any alleged negligent performance of the building inspector in issuing the permit does not have a cause of action. See, Hitchcock v. County of Sherburne, 227 Minn. 132, 135, 34 N.W.2d 342, 344 (1948); Stevens v. North States Motor, Inc. 161 Minn. 345, 201 N.W. 435 (1925); Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, 201 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1967); Meadows v. Village of Mineola, 190 Misc. 815, 72 N.Y.S.2d 368 (1947); Whitney v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 528, 275 N.Y.S.2d 783 (1966).

Consequently, the waiver of governmental immunity by the city of Owatonna does not benefit appellants since the ordinance does not create a duty toward them as individuals.

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MacLAUGHLIN, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 19, 1972
293 Minn. 220 (Minn. 1972)

holding that building permits and inspections "are not meant to be an insurance policy by which the municipality guarantees that each building is built in compliance with the building codes and zoning codes"

Summary of this case from McNamara v. McLean

In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220 (1972), suit was brought against the city for personal injuries and death of occupants of a motel in which a fire occurred.

Summary of this case from Dinsky v. Framingham

In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972), a fire had occurred in a motel injuring the four plaintiffs and it was alleged that the granting of the building permit for changes was in violation of the building code and hence the municipality was liable for negligence. The court held that since a building inspector acted exclusively for the benefit of the public, as distinguished from an individual, any individual who was injured by an alleged negligent performance of the building inspector does not have a cause of action.

Summary of this case from Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America

discussing city's duty to use due care in issuing permits

Summary of this case from Universal Circuits, Inc. v. K R Design

discussing city's duty to use due care in issuing permits

Summary of this case from Vrieze v. New Century Homes, Inc.

In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 222, 199 N.W.2d 158, 160 (1972), the supreme court determined that recovery against a municipality could be obtained only upon showing a breach of some duty owed to the litigants in their individual capacities and not merely a breach of some obligation owed to the general public.

Summary of this case from Danielson v. City of Brooklyn Park

In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc. (1972), 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158, a cross-plaintiff, who was damaged as a result of a motel fire, brought suit against the city on the theory his damages resulted from the city's negligence in issuing a building permit authorizing remodeling of the motel in a manner violative of the city's building code.

Summary of this case from Hannon v. Counihan

In Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc., 293 Minn. 220, 199 N.W.2d 158 (1972), a case involving negligent building inspection, the court held that a building inspector acts exclusively for the benefit of the public, that the act performed is only for the public benefit, and that an individual who is injured by the alleged negligent performance of a building inspector does not have a cause of action.

Summary of this case from Georges v. Tudor

In Hoffert, et al. v. Owatonna Inn (1972), 293 Minn. 220, the Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the dismissal of a complaint and a third-party complaint that had been filed against the city of Owatonna by plaintiffs and a motel owner after plaintiffs were injured in a fire at the motel.

Summary of this case from YOE v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Case details for

Hoffert v. Owatonna Inn Towne Motel, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CHESTER HOFFERT AND OTHERS v. OWATONNA INN TOWNE MOTEL, INC., AND ANOTHER…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: May 19, 1972

Citations

293 Minn. 220 (Minn. 1972)
199 N.W.2d 158

Citing Cases

Dunbar v. United Steelworkers of America

In Coffey v. City of Milwaukee, 74 Wis.2d 526, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976), plaintiff brought action against the…

DANK v. BETCHER

Appellants argue that by voluntarily performing the March 7, 2000 inspection of the property, Paulson assumed…