HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 09-09 Council members can't be sued, attorney says REVIEW Council, members can't
be sued, attorney says
l''
by Scott Carlson The suit alleges that the council
Two current Maplewood city coun- members named in the suit "knowingly,
cilmen — Donald Wiegert and John willfully, intentionally and unlawfully
Greavu — and three former council acted in violation of the law and beyond
members,who are named as defendants the scope of authority granted to them by
in a$100,000 civil suit along with the city the law, to the damage of the plaintiffs
and a Maplewood business, cannot be and their property."
sued for actions they lawfully took in But Bannigan, in the legal response,
office, a Maplewood city attorney has denies that the council members refused
declared. to enforce the law or"willfully,knowingly
The response,filed by John Bannigan in and intentionally" allowed Maplewood
behalf of Wiegert,Greavu,former Mayor Enterprises,Inc.to damage the Barkdoll
Les Axdahl and council members Harald property.
Haugan and Pat Olson,is an answer to a The suit against the council members
suit by Howard and Rose Barkdoll, 1940 may not stand up in court, Bannigan has
Atlantic st., who allege that the council reported to the current city council.
failed to enforce laws which could have Recent court cases, upheld by the
prevented the drainage of water onto Minnesota Supreme Court,have held that
their property. individual members of a city council are
Maplewood Enterprises is also named not responsible for damages that may
as a defendant in the suit. occur to a party because of an honest use
James Ballenthin,legal counsel for the of discretionary power in office,Bannigan
Barkdolls, states that Maplewood states.
Enterprises, Inc. (home of the Bannigan added that it is proper for the
Maplewood Bowl)raised,filled and paved city to defend the two current and three
certain lands it owned in 1970,which since former council members because there is
have caused continual drainage problems no evidence of "malfeasance in office or
for the Barkdolls. willful or wanton neglect of duty."
Ballenthin adds that the Maplewood "Although the plaintiffs complain of
Enterprises, Inc. did this landscaping willfully acting in violation of the law,
work in violation of permits issued by the they have no facts or information to
council and that when the Barkdolls went contend that there was any malfeasance,
to the council and complained the council fraud, conspiracy or other similar types
refused to take any action. of activities," Bannigan states.
In the legal response, Bannigan states
that the city of Maplewood vacated a
portion of the alley lying between, and
parallel to, Atlantic st. and Chamber st.
But he adds there is a lack of information
to ascertain whether Maplewood
Enterprises, Inc. razed, filled or paved
the southerly 150 feet of the vacated
Chamber st.
Bannigan also admits that the council
heard the protests of the Barkdolls but
denies that the council refused to enforce
the laws.
Should any damage to the Barkdoll
property be established it would be due to
Maplewood Enterprises, Inc., Bannigan
indicates.
"The injuries and damages alleged by
the plaintiffs, if proved, were caused by
the primary and active negligence of
defendant Maplewood Enterprises,Inc.in
that it negligently and carelessly im-
proved its properties more particularly
described in plaintiffs' complaint in such
a manner that storm water drained
therefrom all to the detriment of said
plaintiffs," the response states.
While'the Barkdolls ask for $100,000 in
damages they have not presented a notice
stating the "time, place and cir-
cumstances of the alleged loss and the
amount of compensation or other relief
demanded," Bannigan states.
Bannigan also argues that
court lacks jurisdictii%
matter." —