Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Fatal Gas Explosion July 22,1993 St Paul MN

Flashback Friday: Gas Leak Triggered Explosion, Fire in St. Paul's Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood 25 Years Ago

Flashback Friday: Gas Leak Triggered Explosion, Fire in St. Paul's Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood 25 Years Ago: Three people were killed and around a dozen more were injured in the blast and fire on July 22, 1993 ...Give me  Break Unpublished Opinion by Black Judge Toussaint https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/9906/2040.htm

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C5-98-2040

In Re: Maria Avenue Natural Gas Explosion

Consolidated case C9-95-6556

Filed June 22, 1999

Affirmed

Toussaint, Chief Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. C3-96-11908

David A. Singer, 601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050, Minnetonka, MN 55305 (for appellant Randolph Parker)

Frank E. Villaume III, Assistant City Attorney, 550 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent City of St. Paul)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Randall, Judge, and Norton, Judge.[*]

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Randolph Parker appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Respondent City of St. Paul argues this appeal is untimely. Because the appeal was properly taken from a final judgment and the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining (1) the affidavit of Robert Eliason was untimely; (2) the municipal tort liability caps found in Minn. Stat. § 466.04 are constitutional; and (3) respondent is entitled to summary judgment on appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, we affirm.

FACTS

On July 22, 1993, at approximately 8:30 a.m., a gas line was struck by one of respondent's work crews at the corner of Third and Maria Avenue. After the work crew radioed its dispatcher to notify Northern States Power (NSP), it began evacuating people in the vicinity. At 8:52 a.m., an explosion occurred. Three people were killed and several people, including appellant, were injured. Several buildings were destroyed.

Appellant sued respondent, alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenging the constitutionality of the municipal tort liability limits. Respondent moved for summary judgment. In opposition to respondent's motion, appellant submitted the affidavit of Robert Eliason, a former repair foreman for Minnegasco. The district court refused to consider Eliason's affidavit, determined the municipal tort liability limits found in Minn. Stat. § 466.04 were constitutional, and granted respondent's motion for summary judgment on appellant's § 1983 claim. This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

I.

Respondent argues this appeal is untimely because it should have been taken within 90 days after judgment was entered on June 3, 1997. Respondent argues the deposit of its tort liability limit with the district court was all that was necessary for adjudication of all the claims.

However, this court previously determined that an appeal from the June 3, 1997 judgment was premature because that judgment did not determine all claims and damages had not yet been apportioned among the individual plaintiffs involved in the litigation. Thus, the June 3, 1997, judgment was not appealable under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. See In re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Case, 318 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Minn. 1982). This appeal is therefore properly taken from a final judgment dismissing all claims.

II.

On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law.

State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990); see Admiral Merchants v. O'Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261, 265 (Minn. 1992).

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.

Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1983) (citation omitted).

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff may bring a claim alleging deprivation of constitutional rights against a person acting under color of state law. The plaintiff in such a suit "must be able to point to specific articulable constitutional rights that have been transgressed." Armstrong v. Adams, 869 F.2d 410, 413 (8th Cir. 1989). The purpose of § 1983 is to "deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails." Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161, 112 S. Ct. 1827, 1830 (1992).

Appellant argues his right to substantive due process was violated because respondent has a policy, practice, or custom of not contacting emergency crews immediately when a gas line is struck, focusing instead on safeguarding people in the zone of danger. He insists respondent's failure to timely and properly warn him of the immediate danger caused his injury.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "[n]o state shall * * * deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The clause guarantees citizens protection from abusive government conduct or employment of government power as an instrument of oppression. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348, 106 S. Ct. 668, 670 (1986). The guarantee applies only to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S. Ct. 662, 665 (1986). The clause does not impose an affirmative obligation to protect or care for a particular individual. Carlton v. Cleburne County, Ark., 93 F.3d 505, 508 (8th Cir. 1996). Thus, "[m]ere negligence is not an actionable deprivation under the Due Process Clause." Williams v. Soligo, 104 F.3d 1060, 1061 (8th Cir. 1997).

Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (1992), is analogous and dispositive of this case. In Collins, the plaintiff brought a § 1983 action against the city alleging a policy of deliberate indifference about warning employees of work related hazards and providing safety equipment. This policy resulted in the death of plaintiff's husband. In rejecting plaintiff's claim, the Supreme Court stated:

[Plaintiff's] claim is analogous to a fairly typical state-law tort claim: The city breached its duty of care to her husband by failing to provide a safe work environment. Because the Due Process Clause does not purport to supplant traditional tort law * * * we have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort[.]

Id. at 128, 112 S. Ct. at 1070 (citation omitted).

In this case, state tort law covers any alleged wrongdoing by respondent. Appellant failed to allege any material facts establishing an abuse of governmental power by respondent, nor did he allege a deliberate decision on respondent's part to deprive him of his rights. His complaint therefore does not rise to the level that would allow redress through a § 1983 action. As respondent points out, its employees were merely following the procedures set out by NSP. Further, appellant does not allege other instances of respondent hitting gas lines and failing to contact city emergency departments. A single act of a government official or employee cannot be labeled as a "policy." Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24, 105 S. Ct. 2427, 2436 (1985); see also Yang v. Murphy, 796 F.Supp. 1245, 1249 (D. Minn. 1992) (§ 1983 complaint against city dismissed where single incident failed to establish existence of actionable "policy").

The district court therefore did not err in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing appellant's § 1983 claim.

III.

Appellant challenges the district court's refusal to consider the affidavit of Robert Eliason. The district court's case management order applied to appellant's action. Case management order number one concerned all pretrial activities, including expert witness disclosure and discovery. Although appellant's complaint was not filed and served until November 1996, appellant's counsel was involved in the litigation prior to the filing of the complaint and was aware of the deadlines for expert witness discovery. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider the affidavit of Robert Eliason as untimely. Fairview Hosp. & Health Care Servs. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 518 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. App. 1994) (determining trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider expert's affidavit when expert was not disclosed to opposing party until after deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses had passed), aff'd & remanded, 535 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1995).

IV.

"In evaluating challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, this court recognizes that the interpretation of statutes is a question of law." In re Blilie, 494 N.W.2d 877, 881 (Minn. 1993). Accordingly, this court "is not bound by the lower court's conclusions." Id. (citation omitted).

"Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional, and our power to declare a statute unconstitutional should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary." In re Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363, 364 (Minn. 1989) (citation omitted). "The party challenging a statute has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of some provision of the Minnesota Constitution." Id.

Appellant concedes the municipal tort liability limits in Minn. Stat. § 466.04 (1998) are constitutional under the rational basis test. See Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781, 789 (Minn. 1989); Lienhard v. State of Minnesota, 431 N.W.2d 861, 868 (Minn. 1988). He nevertheless argues the intermediate scrutiny test should be applied because a suspect classification exists in the instant case. Appellant argues that the fact that city workers covered under workers' compensation were treated differently than citizens not covered by workers' compensation results in a suspect classification, citing O'Brien v. Estate of Moe, 370 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. App. 1985), aff'd, 381 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. 1985).

In O'Brien, and Bernthal v. City of St. Paul, 376 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1985), the respective courts held that distinguishing between victims covered or not covered by workers' compensation violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. In Bernthal, however, the court determined that no suspect classification existed between the government workers and citizens not covered by workers' compensation, and applied the rational basis test. Further, neither Bernthal nor O'Brien involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the tort limits in Minn. Stat. § 466.04; rather, the equal protection challenge in those cases was to the immunity of a municipality to a victim covered by workers' compensation under Minn. Stat. § 466.03.

Thus, Bernthal and O'Brien support application of the rational basis test analysis in this case. Minnesota courts have utilized the same rational basis test outlined by the United States Supreme Court. See Lienhard, 431 N.W.2d at 866. Application of the rational basis test here establishes that the tort liability limits have a legitimate purpose of maintaining a municipality's fiscal integrity, and that the legislature could have reasonably believed that the enactment of the liability caps would promote this legitimate purpose. Thus, Minn. Stat. § 466.04 is constitutional.

Appellant's other arguments concerning the legislature's prospective review of the tort limits are unpersuasive. By adjusting the tort limits, the legislature has continued to examine the opposing policies of making victims of municipal torts whole while balancing the municipality's fiscal integrity.

We therefore reiterate that the municipal tort liability limits found in Minn. Stat. § 466.04 are constitutional based on the rational basis test analysis.

Affirmed.

[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by apointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

Sharon4USAvsCitySt.PaulvsTerrorism,FairHousing,DirtyDealsDFL3RdMariaBlast1999MarkoftheBeast

                                Wed.10Jun2020 To the abbove named et al
                       lEGACY PETESONS Sharons Dad ole Baldy the Hat Man
               We had fun running for Ramsey County Board vs. Lady DeCoursey




                   IF I DIE BEFORE I WAKE, PRAY THE LORD MY SOUL TO TAKE.
 
 

Amy Brendmoen
Attachments:1. Executive Order 2020-11, 2. Executive Order 2020-12, 3. Executive Order 2020-13, 4. Executive Order 2020-14, 5. Executive Order 2020-15, 6. Executive Order 2020-16
                Affiant now White Widow Whistleblower QuiTam RElator
                           for Decades fighting City St. Paul, County Ramsey
                           Currently the Hard/Soft  Sell of George Floyd Arrest and Death 
                            Funeral Takeover on our Free TV Due Process 4 Cops ie Derricki Chaviun is Bizzare. while Murder of Sharons 2nd husband Cpl.jim Anderson Silver Star,Koren Vet unabated by Government Officials.
                          Hey FS IE fRANKIE AND JOHNY song  were sweethearts re DFL and City St.Paul  your case is still paramount Hard Tacking Terrorism or DFL dESPOTES
                       KNOWN TERORISM IN ST.PAUL,MN 2009
                       LANDLORDS CASE FAIR HOUSING STARTED 2004
                       SHARONS FAMILY,REALESTATE EXPOSE STARTED 198X
                      3rd and Maria Blast when Sharon Candidate4Mayor vs. Norm Coleman
                              Sharon going Blind must ty 3 cases vs City St. Paul For some reason God is keeping me around.                      COUNT I tERRORISM
Court Cases :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism
                      
                           COUNT II fAIR HOUSING
Frank Steinhauser USSC 10-1032 - Google Search
                             COUNT III
3rd and maria blast 1996 - Google SearchSHARONS CIVIL,CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL RIGHTS 
Approving the City’s cost of providing Excessive Use of Inspection or Abatement services billed during January 21 to February 20, 2020, and setting date of Legislative Hearing for July 7, 2020 and City Council public hearing for August 19, 2020 to consider and levy the assessments against individual properties. (File No. J2011E, Assessment No. 208316)
Sponsors:Amy Brendmoen
Attachments:1. Report of Completion J2011E, 2. Assessment Roll J2011E
                          Sh
sharon scarrella anderson real estate and politics - Google Searcharon Candidate 4 Mayor vs. Norm Coleman exposing Sharons rEALESTATE iSSUES

application for answer/cross complaint constitutional ...

forums.e-democracy.org › groups › stpaul-issues › files
 
PDF
Apr 15, 2007 - Complainants-Relatees. V. VA Widow Sharon Scarrella Anderson,Decedant James R. Anderson ... Entreprenuer-Realestate,Prennial Candidate. Thursday, April 12 ... Lets put aside our petty political: we are all. Page 10 of 63.
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 11/26/19
 
 
Sl Paul po!i.cereportlhat on Janu.,ry 24, 2012 at appr~ximateIY2:00 p.m., they were dispatched 10 715 Burr Str~et, st. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, on a call of an assault in progress with a son having stabbed his mothlltaIld Who Was no",qlying 10 reenter the home bybrealdllg a window witli a shovel: Upon amval police observed a man, later identified as SlrARMARKE MOH.,.\jI4ED DUALE,'D.O.B. 05/1111991. on the front po;chwith a S11ovo1 in his hand. Police mested Duale anI) th!1'1 went in!i~e aIld observed his motllet, Identified lis S.H.W., with several defensive stab wounds on herhaiids. Police recoveled,a small folding knife that family melllbenl statedShannarkeDuale used In the assault" M.H.!:> .• the father of Sbannarke Duale,'told police that Duale was trying to stab him with the knife and that S.H. W:tried to inte:vene andwas cut
STATE OF MINJ'.{ESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY State of J\(Iinnesota, PlaiJdifl', 'If. Sbarmar!(e Mohamed DuaIe .(DOB~ 05/11/1991) CUITent.l\.ddres8 Unknown Defendant. FELONY DISTRICT COURT ~ECONP JUD, ICtAL DISTRICT ~bl (/C_K.l - '7 ~I COURT FILE NO.: :::-:c::".......,~-= PROSECUTOR FILE NO.: 2109~07
 
Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon
v. Arch
xx
 
 

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Sharon4USAWhistleblowerexposingCitySt.PaulSewerFraudBillingswhenpaid2020

                         Mon 23Mar2020
                Affiant exposing on weekly basis, Council's wilful neglience, Influence Peddling
stealing Propertys via Fraudu
City of Saint Paul - Calendarlent Billings, Ghost Excessive Inspections,
                       All these Tax Appeals in Critical Times is Bizzare.
             
City Council3/25/2020Export to iCalendar3:30 PMCouncil Chambers - 3rd Floor
Please see below for new meeting guidelines due to the COVID-19 health pandemic emergency.
Meeting detailsAgenda Agenda
               Forensic Files Proof the St. Paul City Council and their lawyer do not read Comments on Legistar yet Ratify Bogus Billings and or Delay months or years later. Complicit with Ramsey County Auditor Chris Samuel.
              RES 20-373
                          Brendmoen 3,878 parcels see pg 803- 697 Surrey
Title:Approving assessment costs and setting date of City Council public hearing to ratify the assessment for the 2019 Street Maintenance Service Program-Sealcoating Street and/or Alley. (File No. 195600, Assessment No. 195600)
Sponsors:Amy Brendmoen
Attachments:1. Report of Completion, 2. Assessment Roll
 Add New Comment
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
3/9/2020 7:15 PMSharonLegalEagle Against

  
3/8/2020 11:03 AMSharonUSA AgainstSharon Lee Anderson ;Proof SealCoat paid http://stpaul-code-cops.blogspot.com 697 Surrey Av St Paul MN 55106-5521 *697 SURREY AVE *Ward: 7 *Pending as of : 12/30/2019 LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL LOT 5 BLK 46 Sealcoating - Surrey (2) 6.22 40.00 $248.80 32-29-22-41-0053 $248.80 *** Owner and Taxpayer *** $248.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $248.80 Total ***essment: This Payment: Current Year Principal: Current Year Interest: Payoff Amount: StPaul_***essment_Roll_***essment_by_PID_Fee_to_Asmt.rpt

                               Affiants proof $248.00 paid.
All these Sewer Charges
RES 20-297 Tolbert 4 parcrels
RES 20-257 Jalai 3 parcels
RES 20-292 Prince 1 parcel
RES 20-295 Prince 1 parcel

     Recpt on file with US BANK.
        Techinally haven't left the House since Oct 4 political reasons,
            Paid Sewer of $248.00, City if failing to Credit.








Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon
v. Arch