Action for damages for highway obstruction authorized, and civil penalties imposed.
HF367 creates a new civil cause of action for highway obstruction in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 169. Under the bill, a person—including an individual, private entity, state agency, or political subdivision—that intentionally interferes with, obstructs, or makes a public highway dangerous for passage would be liable to an injured person for damages, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs. The bill is framed as a public safety measure and applies to conduct that causes injury through highway obstruction.
The bill also addresses the relationship between this new civil remedy and existing criminal law. If the same conduct violates both the new section and the criminal highway-obstruction provision in section 609.74, clause (2), a state agency or political subdivision must choose either a civil action under HF367 or criminal prosecution, but not both for the same conduct. The bill excludes law enforcement, emergency responders, road and airport authorities, and utility officials or their agents, employees, or contractors when they are carrying out duties imposed by law or contract. The effective date is August 1, 2025, and it applies only to causes of action accruing on or after that date.
HF367 would add a new section, Minnesota Statutes section 169.907, creating civil liability for intentional highway obstruction and authorizing damages, attorney fees, and costs for injured parties. It would also affect how public entities respond to certain obstruction conduct by requiring an election between civil enforcement under the new section and criminal prosecution under existing section 609.74, clause (2). The bill would not apply to specified public-safety and infrastructure personnel acting within their duties, limiting exposure for emergency and utility-related work.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy, but no committee transcript or vote history is provided. Based on the bill’s framing, it appears to be presented as a public-safety enforcement measure aimed at addressing dangerous highway obstruction and providing a remedy for injured persons. Because there is no recorded discussion or vote data in the provided materials, there is no documented support or opposition to characterize beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main policy issue raised by the bill is whether intentional highway obstruction should be addressed through civil litigation, criminal prosecution, or both. HF367 resolves that question for state agencies and political subdivisions by forcing an election of remedies, which may be seen as limiting duplicative enforcement but also constraining prosecutorial or civil options. Another likely point of contention is the scope of liability and the inclusion of attorney fees, as well as the breadth of the exemption for law enforcement, emergency responders, road and airport authorities, and utility personnel. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials.