Opinion ID: 1627664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Officer Ratliff and Immunity Protections

Text: The official immunity doctrine does not apply to police officers responding to non-emergencies, but it does apply if the officers are responding to an emergency. Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 763 (citing Brown v. Tate, 888 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Mo. App.1994)). Officer Ratliff's conduct was in the course of his official duties and involved the kind of discretionary decisions that require professional expertise and judgment that the official immunity doctrine is intended to protect. See Brown, 888 S.W.2d at 415; Fonseca v. Collins, 884 S.W.2d 63, 67 (Mo.App.1994). As such, he is shielded from liability in this case by official immunity unless an exception to application of the doctrine applies. No Missouri case specifically outlines whether the public duty doctrine applies to emergency operation of a motor vehicle like Officer Ratliff's conduct in this case. [21] To determine whether the public duty doctrine applies to Officer Ratliff's conduct, this Court examines whether his actions involved a duty to the public generally, instead of to a specific individual. See Jungerman, 925 S.W.2d at 205. That Officer Ratliff was acting within the scope of his job as a police officer at the time of the collision [22] is not enough to determine that his actions involved a public duty. Davis-Bey, 944 S.W.2d at 298. Although the public duty doctrine cannot insulate Officer Ratliff from liability where a duty is owed to particular individuals for the performance of ministerial duties in which a private individual has a special, direct, and distinctive interest, this ministerial duty-based exception does not apply in the discretion-laden emergency situation in which Officer Ratliff was involved. [23] Jungerman, 925 S.W.2d at 205 (internal citations and quotations omitted). This Court finds that Officer Ratliff's police pursuit conduct arose from his duties owed to the public generally, and is eligible for the protections of the public duty doctrine, unless Plaintiffs pleaded an applicable exception to applying the doctrine. As outlined above, Plaintiffs' allegations that Officer Ratliff failed to comply with applicable departmental policies or the provisions of section 304.022 do not except his conduct from immunity protections, even if this failure is relevant to proof of negligence. [24] Officer Ratliff's conduct is protected by official immunity and the public duty doctrine, and Plaintiffs pleaded no applicable exceptions to applying these immunity protections. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in his favor.