Opinion ID: 1653579
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ministerial duty imposed by law

Text: ¶ 43 The first exception arises out of a recognition that discretionary acts are immune whereas ministerial acts are not protected by immunity. Id., ¶ 25. A ministerial duty is one that `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.' Id., ¶ 25 (citing Lister v. Bd. of Regents, 72 Wis.2d 282, 301, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976)). ¶ 44 For example, in Lodl, the plaintiff asserted that the police officer had a ministerial duty to manually control traffic at an intersection where traffic lights were no longer working. Lodl, 253 Wis.2d 323, ¶¶ 6-8, 27, 646 N.W.2d 314. This court concluded that the applicable statute and the police department's policy did not confer a ministerial duty on the police officer to manually direct traffic. Id., ¶¶ 27-28. The statute at issue did not direct the officer to perform manual traffic control in any specific situation, and the policy only described manual traffic control procedures if the officer decided to manually control traffic. Id. Neither the statute nor the policy eliminated the officer's discretion as to when or where to undertake manual traffic control. Id., ¶¶ 28-31. ¶ 45 In the case at hand, the spirit rules do not eliminate the cheerleading coach's discretion. Moreover, the school district did not officially adopt the spirit rules. Nonetheless, Noffke asserts that the spirit rules required the cheerleading coach in this case to provide a spotter and mats. We disagree with Noffke's interpretation. The spirit rules leave a coach's discretion intact; they do not impose the type of ministerial duty that Noffke asserts because the spirit rules lack the absolute, certain, and imperative direction that prescribes and defines the time, mode, and occasion for the action's performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. ¶ 46 First, the portion of the spirit rules that governs Coaches' Responsibilities specifically states: The following guidelines have been developed and reviewed to serve as a useful reminder of basic procedures for coaching spirit squads. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the relevant portions of the Coaches' Responsibilities do not confer a ministerial duty upon the coach. Each relevant portion gives the coach discretion. For example, the Coaches' Responsibilities provides, [a]ll spirit activities should be held in a location suitable for spirit activities with the use of mats, free of obstructions, and away from excessive noise or distractions. In addition, the Coaches' Responsibilities also provides that [p]roper progression, spotting techniques and matting should be used until stunts are mastered. Neither of these rules confers an absolute, certain and imperative duty upon the coach. Rather, the tone is suggestive, which is evident from the use of language such as should be rather than the mandatory word shall. Moreover, each rule gives the coach discretion as to when and where spotting or matting would be appropriate. ¶ 47 Second, the General Risk Management section also fails to confer an absolute, certain and imperative duty. Section four, article one of the spirit rules states that [s]potters are required until a stunt (mount, pyramid, toss, tumbling skill) is mastered, but article six states that [a] spotter is required for stunts in which the supporting arm(s) of the base(s) is fully extended above the head.... In this case, the post-to-hands stunt does not even require a spotter because the base's hands are not fully extended above the head. In addition, while the cheerleaders in this case had not performed this stunt together, the record reflects that they had performed more difficult stunts, Noffke thought it was a medium easy stunt, both Noffke and Bakke thought they could do the stunt, Bakke was a trained spotter, and the coach knew that the level of difficulty they were used to was much higher. Therefore, the rules do not clearly mandate that a spotter was necessary, and thus, no ministerial duty imposed by law exists. ¶ 48 However, even if the spirit rules were interpreted as mandating a spotter in this case, the cheerleading coach did provide a spotterBakke. The spirit rules define a spotter as a person who is in direct contact with the performing surface and may help control the building of, or dismounting from, a stunt. This person(s) shall not provide the primary support, meaning the stunt or pyramid would remain stable without the spotter(s). In this case, Bakke was on the ground, he assisted in the building of the post-to-hands, and the stunt could remain stable without Bakke. Bakke was not the base, but rather, he served as the spotter to the stunt even though that stunt did not require a spotter. ¶ 49 Noffke argues that the rules impose a ministerial duty upon the coach to make sure the spotter is in the right position in order to be considered a spotter. However, we do not interpret this provision as conferring an absolute, certain and imperative duty on the coach. While it is true that Bakke should have been standing in the back instead of the front, he was there as a spotter. Only two persons are required for this stunt, but the coach, as a safety precaution, required an extra person to be present and serve as an extra spotter. ¶ 50 Noffke also argues that the cheerleading coach violated a ministerial duty by failing to provide matting as required by the rules. We, however, disagree because any matting provision in the rule gives the cheerleading coach discretion and thus does not confer a ministerial duty. The comment to rule two, situation ruling 2.1.4, situation B, provides that [s]tunting should be performed only on appropriate surfaces where there is adequate space and lighting. As stated above, the Coaches' Responsibilities provides, [a]ll spirit activities should be held in a location suitable for spirit activities with the use of mats, free of obstructions, and away from excessive noise or distractions. We do not interpret these provisions to prescribe and define the time, mode, and occasion for matting with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. In fact, these stunts would ultimately be performed without mats during a basketball game. ¶ 51 Accordingly, we conclude that the spirit rules provide the cheerleading coach with a significant amount of discretion. The spirit rules provide discretion rather than conferring any absolute, certain, imperative, and therefore ministerial duty.