Opinion ID: 1984594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ministerial Duty

Text: [7] ¶ 17. For at least a century, the law has drawn a distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts, shielding the performer of the former but exposing the latter to liability. Barillari, 194 Wis. 2d at 257-58; Cords v. Ehly, 62 Wis. 2d 31, 41, 214 N.W.2d 432 (1974); Druecker v. Salomon, 21 Wis. 628 (), 637 () (1867). The oft-cited summation of this most common exception was stated initially in Lister, 72 Wis. 2d at 301: A public officer's duty is ministerial only when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. ¶ 18. The difficulty Kierstyn faces with this exception is that Farrell was under no duty that was absolute, certain and imperative which impose[d], prescribe[d] and define[d] the time, mode and occasion for its performance. Kierstyn has not pointed to any statutory obligation Farrell faced under Wisconsin law to advise the District's employees regarding their WRS benefits or even any similar obligation he faced under his contractual arrangement with the District. See Coffey v. City of Milwaukee, 74 Wis. 2d 526, 539, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976) (ministerial duties can arise by statute or by contract). ¶ 19. In actuality, Kierstyn has not seriously argued that Farrell was legally obligated to provide WRS benefit information to employees of the District. Rather, he has posited all along that Farrell's conduct should be considered ministerial because Farrell's incorrect information resulted from his errant reading of a clear and unambiguous statute. [8] ¶ 20. Kierstyn acknowledges that typically a public officer, such as Farrell, is clothed in immunity when that officer applies statutes to a given set of facts, such as interpreting how statutes will apply to a particular person. Olson, 143 Wis. 2d at 717-18. He argues, however, that this is not a typical case because judgment and interpretation, the hallmarks of discretion, are not implicated where the statute is unambiguous. His argument, as we understand it, is that one does not interpret an unambiguous statute, one follows it. ¶ 21. We cannot accept Kierstyn's argument that an unambiguous statute creates a ministerial duty. As noted above, a public officer's duty must arise from some obligation created by law. The District was under no legal obligation to hire a benefits specialist. In like fashion, Farrell was under no legal obligation to offer advice about WRS benefits to employees of the District. See Olson, 143 Wis. 2d at 722; Lifer, 80 Wis. 2d at 510; c.f. Estate of Cavanaugh v. Andrade, 202 Wis. 2d 290, 300-01, 550 N.W.2d 103 (1996); Turner v. City of Milwaukee, 193 Wis. 2d 412, 421-22, 535 N.W.2d 15 (Ct. App. 1995). ¶ 22. Kierstyn does not end his argument there. Rather, he maintains that even if Farrell was under no ministerial duty to provide WRS information to the District's employees in the first instance, his choosing to do so created a ministerial duty to provide the correct information. ¶ 23. It is true that in a select number of cases we have concluded that once public officers choose in their discretion to act, they are bound by a ministerial duty to act in a certain manner. For example, in a series of cases involving the erection of highway road signs, this court determined that once public officers make the discretionary decision to place a highway warning sign, they have a ministerial duty to place that sign according to the specific administrative rules for placement. Chart v. Dvorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 102, 203 N.W.2d 673 (1973). Also, in Major v. Milwaukee County, 196 Wis. 2d 939, 944-45, 539 N.W.2d 472 (Ct. App. 1995), the court of appeals concluded that, while a county had discretion both to sell a parcel of property and to negotiate the terms of the sale, once it signed a sales contract the county had a ministerial duty to adhere to the provisions of the contract. ¶ 24. These cases, however, provide little aid to Kierstyn's cause because they are readily distinguishable. The public officers in Chart and Major were deemed to have a ministerial duty not because they elected to act. They were deemed to have a ministerial duty because they elected to act and the subject matter of their action imposed specific legal obligations on the manner in which they were to act. That is to say, these public officers did not have to act at allbut if they did choose to act, they faced a specific legal obligation to do so in a prescribed manner. ¶ 25. As a result, while the public officers in Chart were not legally obligated to erect road signs in any particular place, once they did choose to erect signs, they were obligated to erect those signs in the manner specified by the rules and statutes. Chart, 57 Wis. 2d at 99. See also Raisanen v. City of Milwaukee, 35 Wis. 2d 504, 513-14, 151 N.W.2d 129 (1967). Likewise, while the public officers in Major were not obligated to sell county property or were free to sell it on their own terms, once they signed a sales contract they were under a ministerial duty to follow the terms of that contract. Major, 196 Wis. 2d at 944-45. This same principle has been followed in other contexts as well. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage Comm., 80 Wis. 2d 10, 15-17, 258 N.W.2d 148 (1977) (design of sewer systems is discretionary; construction of sewers according to the design is ministerial). ¶ 26. Here, Farrell was under no duty to provide WRS benefit information in the first instance. Similarly, once Farrell elected to provide some WRS benefit information, he was under no legal duty to do so in a particular manner or according to any particular rules. See Barillari, 194 Wis. 2d at 261-62. ¶ 27. In the end, Kierstyn's argument really is not that the statute imposed any duty on Farrell to provide information, only that Farrell negligently interpreted the clear provisions of the statute. Kierstyn focuses his ministerial duty analysis not on any obligation the statute imposed on Farrell, but rather on the statute's clarity. ¶ 28. However, to argue that the statute is clear is to miss the point of immunity. As the circuit court aptly stated: [Kierstyn really argues] that Farrell had a duty to exercise due care and a duty not to be negligent. That, however, is precisely what the doctrine of immunity insulates a party from, i.e., liability due to the fact that they have been negligent. The fact that certain conduct may have been negligent does not transform that conduct into a breach of a ministerial duty. The existence of a duty of care does not necessarily imply that the duty was ministerial. Consideration of the issue of immunity implies that the party was or may have been negligent. If they were not, they would not need to seek the protection of immunity. Immunity presupposes negligence and has no reason for existence without it. Kimps v. Hill, 200 Wis. 2d 1, 11, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996). ¶ 29. The statute may have been clear and Farrell may have negligently applied it, but the statute did not direct Farrell to act in any manner. Farrell was under no ministerial duty.