The tree inspector's duties were operational and did not require the balancing of political, social, or economic factors in the policy-making stage and therefore the city is not protected by statutory immunity. The city also challenges the district court's denial of summary judgment on the doctrine of official immunity. Official immunity protects government employees who may be subject to liability in the course of performing their work duties. But the exercise of judgment or discretion does not necessarily confer official immunity. The main question before this court is whether the city tree inspector's actions were discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, a distinction often difficult to make.
Ministerial duties are that which involve the execution of a specific duty.
With these facts, directed by the line of cases defining ministerial acts, the district court correctly concluded that that the tree inspector's failure to determine that the tree was hazardous was a decision made in a ministerial capacity. The tree inspector was not required to use independent judgment to balance policy objectives. Rather, he made a routine inspection to determine if the tree was hazardous. Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const.