The plaintiff was paralyzed after her vehicle struck a cow on the interstate highway. She and her husband sued the owner of the cow and the state, alleging that the state was negligent in failing to maintain a right of way fence along the interstate. The state moved for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to immunity because its decision to not maintain a fence was a discretionary decision entitled to statutory immunity under Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(b). The district court granted the motion, finding that the state had presented "sufficient evidence showing that [its] officials determined [that] repairing fences was not a high priority." In affirming the judgment, the court ruled that prioritization of maintenance activities was protected by statutory immunity. The court found that the affidavits presented by the state defined the policy placing fence repair at a low priority and explained the purpose of the policy. As such, the state was entitled to statutory immunity. Schmitz v. Rowekamp, No. A13-1686, 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 497 (Minn. Ct. App. May 19, 2014).