Opinion ID: 1391747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Nature of the Office: Discretionary and Ministerial Powers and Duties

Text: Where negligence is charged, the immunity of a public officer or employee may depend upon the nature of the duties performed, that is, whether the act is discretionary or ministerial. Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan, D.C.Cal., 421 F. Supp. 302 (1976); Simon v. Heald, Del.Super., 359 A.2d 666 (1976); Walkowski v. Macomb County Sheriff, 64 Mich. App. 460, 236 N.W.2d 516 (1975); Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782, 73 Cal. Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352 (1968); Carter v. Carlson, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 447 F.2d 358 (1971), on remand 56 F.R.D. 9 (1972), rev'd in part on other grounds, sub nom., District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 93 S.Ct. 602, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (1973), reh. den. 410 U.S. 959, 93 S.Ct. 1411, 35 L.Ed.2d 694 (1973), vacated in part on other grounds 160 D.C.D.C. 148, 489 F.2d 1272 (1974); Wu v. Keeney, D.C.D.C., 384 F. Supp. 1161 (1974); Watson v. St. Annes Hospital, 68 Ill. App.3d 1048, 25 Ill. Dec. 411, 386 N.E.2d 885 (1979); and Cerino v. Township of Palmer, Pa.Super., 401 A.2d 770 (1979). Immunity generally extends to discretionary acts of officials but not to those that are ministerial. In ascertaining whether an act is discretionary, the judicial (decision- or policy-making) character of the officer's act rather than the judicial (decision- or policy-making) character of his office furnishes the basis of his exemption if, in fact, he is exempt. [12] A public official's duty is ministerial when ... it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a set task, and when the law which imposes it prescribes and defines the time, mode, and occasion of its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. More specifically, where the law imposes on the officer the performance of ministerial duties in which a private individual has a special, direct, and distinctive interest, the officer is liable to such individual for any injury which he may proximately sustain in consequence of the failure to perform the duty at all, or to perform it properly. (Footnote references omitted.) 67 C.J.S. Officers § 208, subsection c, Ministerial Powers and Duties, p. 686. See, also, quotations from Denver Buick, Inc. v. Pearson, Wyo., 465 P.2d 512 (1970); and Spaniol Ford, Inc. v. Froggatt, Wyo., 478 P.2d 598 (1970), infra. The United States Court of Appeals confronted the ministerial-discretionary issue in Jackson v. Kelly, 10 Cir., 557 F.2d 735 (1977), and held that an Air Force physician's operation technique could be ministerial in nature and, thus, not immune. In that case, Chief Judge Lewis, writing for the court, said that the physician's treatment of the patient did not involve governmental discretion and that the physician was not entitled to assert the doctrine of official immunity. The court said that the test for immunity is not mechanical and immunity is not the same for all officials for all purposes. While recognizing the needs of both plaintiff and the public's right to have public officials free of harassment from litigation, the court went on to explain that the determination of whether given fact situations constitute immunity for the particular official involved required careful inquiry into the alleged wrongful acts and scope of the accused official's duties. In its decision, the court overruled any prior decisions granting absolute immunity to defendants who could not pass the discretionary-functions test. Referring to the recent United States Supreme Court case of Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 93 S.Ct. 2018, 2028, 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973), Judge Lewis observed that the Court said in Doe, where the immunity of the public printer and the superintendent of documents for Congress was at issue: ... Plaintiffs alleged these officials invaded their privacy by publishing certain derogatory documents for use in Congress and distribution elsewhere. The Court found the officials were acting within the scope of their duties but their duties were not discretionary The court held official immunity does not automatically attach to any conduct expressly or impliedly authorized by law, unless the official was exercising a discretionary function. This rule is appropriate because the effective administration of policies of government is not severely impaired if officials with ministerial duties are answerable in damages for failure to perform obligatory functions with reasonable care.  Doe further indicates that when an official acting in a nondiscretionary capacity claims immunity, the Supreme Court `has advised a discerning inquiry into whether the contributions of immunity to effective government in particular contexts outweigh the perhaps recurring harm to individual citizens... .' 412 U.S. at 320, 93 S.Ct. at 2028. Thus, the court mandates the use of the discretionary function test, and a direct balancing of the policies underlying the immunity doctrine in the context of each fact situation. See, e.g., Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (qualified immunity granted to school board officials who exercise discretion); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (qualified immunity for Governor and executive officers of state exercising discretionary responsibilities). 557 F.2d at 737. It can, therefore be said that-absent civil-rights complaints, acts done in bad faith, intentional torts or false imprisonment-where the employee is performing discretionary acts which are not in excess of authority and are within the scope thereof, he or she will not be liable for the manner in which discretion is exercised. Immunity flows from the notion that, in order that government may function effectively and efficiently, officers' decision-making responsibilities should remain free from threat of suit for redress of tortious activity. Again, assuming an absence of civil-rights complaints, acts done in bad faith, intentional tort or false imprisonment, where the employee is functioning within the scope of his authority and not in excess thereof, and where he negligently performs or negligently fails to perform ministerial acts imposed by law or legal authority, he or she will not be immune. A sense of the protection which the law affords the discretionary functions of public officials, and particularly the judiciary, can be gleaned from 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, ch. 26, § 26.01, where the author says: The background for the law conferring immunity upon administrative officers exercising discretionary powers is the law concerning immunity of judges. The Supreme Court early held: `It is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself... . The principle ... obtains in all countries where there is any well-ordered system of jurisprudence.' The doctrine is rigorously applied in recent times, with the explanation that `The purpose of the rule which exempts public officers from the harassment of private suits for damages on account of the performance of their public duties, is, secondarily, for their protection, in order that its primary objectives may be secured, i.e., a fearless administration of the law.' ... (Footnote reference omitted.) We were confronted with the issue of a state judicial official who was alleged to have acted in excess of his authority in Linde v. Bentley, Wyo., 482 P.2d 121 (1971). In that case, when a non-lawyer purported to represent himself and others before the courts of this state, a district judge was sued for issuing an order instructing the clerk of the court to strike all the layman's pleadings from the record and to not accept for filing further pleadings and motions until they had been reviewed by the judge. Finding that the trial judge did not act outside his jurisdiction because of a statute extending the judge's supervisory authority over clerks of court, and even though the plaintiff had not urged that the judge did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter (and despite the warm protective blanket of immunity in which the law has safely wrapped the judiciary), we were, nevertheless, moved to observe: As to plaintiff's third point, it has long been the rule that courts of general jurisdiction are exempt from liability of civil actions for their official acts even if in excess of their jurisdiction-although a distinction is observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter. Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 351-352, 20 L.Ed. 646; Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 536, 19 L.Ed. 285; 46 Am.Jur.2d Judges § 72... . 482 P.2d at 123. We know of no Wyoming case authority which discusses the question of governmental immunity where the officer acts under an assumption of authority which he does not have, Schwing, supra, i.e., where he purports to act in the absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. We look, then, to other areas for a sense of the balancing process in which courts must indulge where they are charged with finding immunity for the administrative official so that he may engage in fearless administration of the law, Davis, Administrative Law, supra, while, at the same time, providing protection from those officers who, under the guise of immunity, work their wrongful ways against those who deserve neither their wrath nor their negligence. In Price v. State Highway Commission, 62 Wyo. 385, 167 P.2d 309, 312 (1946), where the plaintiff struck a snowplow and sued the Commission, the State Highway Superintendent and the driver of the plow for negligent operation of the vehicle, we decided that, since the individuals were operating within the scope of their employment and authority, they partook of the State's immunity. In support of our holding, we cited 43 Am.Jur. 85, § 273 from the 1942 encyclopedia [now 63 Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers & Employees, § 288], where it is said: `As a rule a public officer, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or executive, is not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official authority, and in the line of his official duty. In order that acts may be done within the scope of official authority, it is not necessary that they be prescribed by statute, or even that they be specifically directed or requested by a superior officer, but it is sufficient if they are done by an officer in relation to matters committed by law to his control or supervision, or that they have more or less connection with such matters, or that they are governed by a lawful requirement of the department under whose authority the officer is acting.' This rule does not take into account the difference between decision-making and ministerial functions, which difference is basic to a public employee's liability inquiry. While we did not discuss the ministerial v. discretionary feature in Price, supra, we did compare ministerial with governmental function in Osborn v. Lawson, Wyo., 374 P.2d 201, 203 (1962), where we said: The operation of snowplows along the highways of this state is practically a necessity. It is a duty performed on behalf of the public, and so we think that we must hold that the operation of a snowplow in the case at bar was a governmental duty rather than ministerial. Mower v. Williams, 402 Ill. 486, 84 N.E.2d 435; Shirkey v. Keokuk County, 225 Iowa 1159, 275 N.W. 706; Genkinger v. Jefferson County, 250 Iowa 118, 93 N.W.2d 130; 5 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, § 2889, p. 28 (Perm. Ed.). This is an unfortunate comparison. The proper backdrop against which a public official's liability must be set is ministerial v. discretionary  not ministerial v. governmental!! Surely, it is obvious that an official's act may be ministerial and governmental, but it cannot be ministerial and discretionary. [13] Although it is admittedly difficult to know, Price, supra, may find its rationale in the concept which says that where the public employee is performing a function within the ambit of his authority and the risk of injury to the public is inherent in the activity, the employee ought not be required to bear the risk [14] and, therefore, his or her negligence-if any-will be regarded as decisional in nature and hence immune. Furthermore, the Price snowplow operator may be regarded as acting under orders from his superior who was functioning within the scope of his authority in pursuit of immune decision-making powers. In this latter context, Price and Osborn, supra, are similar. John D. Charles was killed when the car he was driving collided head on with a snowplow working on the interstate highway against traffic and which was, when struck, obscured by a cloud of snow created by a passing truck. Charles' estate and the owner of the car Charles had been driving sued Lawson, the snowplow operator. Lawson, employed by the highway department, moved for summary judgment on the dual grounds that he enjoyed the State's immunity and that he had not been negligent. He supported his motion with an affidavit from the chief engineer of the state highway department. The affidavit asserts that Lawson, in driving the snowplow against traffic, was following established highway commission procedures. No counteraffidavit was filed and the district court awarded summary judgment to Lawson on the ground that he enjoyed immunity from suit. On appeal, we said that Price, supra, supported the district court's judgment, but, in so holding, we found it appropriate to survey the law in this area. The opinion acknowledged Palmer v. Marceille, 106 Vt. 500, 175 A. 31 (1934), in which the plaintiff's car collided with a car negligently parked on the travelled portion of the road by a state highway employee. The Vermont court held that a highway employee was not exempt from personal liability for negligence merely because he was an employee performing governmental work. However, we dismissed that line of authority with this rationale: The rule of the Vermont and other cases just mentioned has not, we think, any application in the case at bar. It must in any event be limited in a case such as before us to a situation in which the employee or officer of the highway department acts independently of and not under the direction and control of the highway department ... It is said in 4 A.L.I. Restatement, Torts, § 888 (1939), as follows: `   While there is no immunity by the mere fact that one is a public officer, there are many situations where a person may be protected by the command of a superior... .'       ... In any event ... the negligence, if any, in the operation of the snowplow herein was the negligence of the highway commission by reason of the fact that it prescribed the method of operating the snowplow. The operator of that snowplow, whether we call him an officer or employee makes little difference, followed in his operation the directions prescribed by his superior. He was compelled to do so or quit... . Osborn, supra, 374 P.2d at 205. Osborn does not, therefore, hold that a state employee, while engaged in state work, is automatically entitled to immunity from personal liability for negligent acts. Osborn stands for the isolated notion that a public employee, even working under negligent supervision, where the risk of public injury is inherent, will enjoy immunity from tort liability. It does not follow that if the employee made a negligent mistake-absent negligent instruction-the employee could not be held liable as performing an unprotected ministerial duty. Neither Price nor Osborn can be viewed as holding that a negligent public employee performing purely imperative or ministerial duties will be immune from their negligent acts. In Denver Buick and Spaniol Ford, supra, the county clerks were sued for the negligent performance of their official duties. In those cases, while some loose usage of the terms governmental, ministerial, and proprietary may have been employed, the sense of what we said is that the nature of the duties in which the clerks were engaged and out of which the alleged tortious acts evolved were discretionary rather than ministerial. [15] In both cases, we indicated that the clerks might be liable had they been performing purely ministerial acts. We did not, however, offer any rationale for determining how to identify discretionary or ministerial functions. We here observe and emphasize that in determining the presence or absence of public-employee immunity, where the employee is charged with negligence, the language which should properly be employed is ministerial v. discretionary- not ministerial v. governmental (as in Osborn ).