Opinion ID: 1653579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Immunity of the school district

Text: ¶ 38 Next, we must determine whether Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4) provides the school district with immunity for the alleged negligent acts of the cheerleading coach. Noffke asserts that the cheerleading coach's cloak of immunity is removed by either of the following exceptions: (1) she violated a ministerial duty imposed by law; and (2) cheerleading involves a known and compelling danger that gives rise to a ministerial duty. ¶ 39 Noffke argues that the cheerleading coach violated a ministerial duty because the coach, as Noffke asserts, did not provide a spotter and mats as required by the spirit rules. In addition, Noffke argues that even if the coach did not violate a ministerial duty imposed by the spirit rules, the coach violated a ministerial duty that arose out of the known and compelling danger of allowing cheerleaders to perform a stunt for the first time without safety precautions. The school district, on the other hand, argues that no ministerial duty was violated because the school board did not officially adopt the spirit rules, the spirit rules were not violated, and no known and compelling danger existed. We conclude that the school district is immune because no ministerial duty imposed by law was violated and there was no known and compelling danger that gave rise to a ministerial duty. ¶ 40 Wisconsin Stat. § 893.80(4) provides: No suit may be brought against any volunteer fire company organized under ch. 213, political corporation, governmental subdivision or any agency thereof for the intentional torts of its officers, officials, agents or employees nor may any suit be brought against such corporation, subdivision or agency or volunteer fire company or against its officers, officials, agents or employees for acts done in the exercise of legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions. ¶ 41 This statute provides broad immunity from suit to municipalities and their officers and employees. Lodl v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 2002 WI 71, ¶ 20, 253 Wis.2d 323, 646 N.W.2d 314. It immunizes against liability for legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial, and quasi-judicial acts, which have been collectively interpreted to include any act that involves the exercise of discretion and judgment. Id., ¶ 21. ¶ 42 However, no immunity against liability exists for those acts associated with: (1) the performance of ministerial duties imposed by law; (2) known and compelling dangers that give rise to ministerial duties on the part of public officers or employees; (3) acts involving medical discretion; and (4) acts that are malicious, willful, and intentional. Id., ¶ 24. Noffke argues that the first two exceptions apply to the case at hand.
¶ 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.
¶ 52 Noffke also argues that cheerleading, under the facts of this case, is a known and compelling danger that gives rise to a ministerial duty. This exception to immunity arises out of the theory that a known and compelling danger may be so dangerous that a public officer has a duty to act. Lodl, 253 Wis.2d 323, ¶¶ 33-34, 646 N.W.2d 314; Kierstyn v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 228 Wis.2d 81, 95-96, 596 N.W.2d 417 (1999). [A] public officer's duty is ministerial where a danger is known and of such quality that the public officer's duty to act becomes absolute, certain and imperative.... Stated otherwise, where a public officer's duty is not generally prescribed and defined by law in time, mode, and occasion, such that nothing remains for judgment or discretion, circumstances may give rise to such a certain duty where ... the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act.... Lodl, 253 Wis.2d 323, ¶ 34, 646 N.W.2d 314 (quotations and citations omitted). ¶ 53 This exception arose out of Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis.2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977). In Cords, the plaintiffs fell into a steep, 90-feet-deep gorge while walking on a state park trail, which did not have any warning signs. Id. at 534-35, 541-42, 259 N.W.2d 672. The plaintiffs sued the park manager for failing to post warning signs even though he knew of the hazard. This court concluded that the known and compelling danger gave rise to a ministerial duty requiring the manager to post warning signs or advise his superiors of the hazardous condition. Id. at 541-42, 259 N.W.2d 672. A ministerial duty arose because the danger was so clear and so absolute. Id. at 542, 259 N.W.2d 672. ¶ 54 The court of appeals most recently applied the known and compelling danger exception in Voss v. Elkhorn Area School District, 2006 WI App 234, 297 Wis.2d 389, 724 N.W.2d 420. In Voss, students were learning about the effects of alcohol by wearing fatal vision goggles. Id., ¶ 2. When the goggles are worn, the situation is meant to replicate a .10 blood alcohol concentration. Id. While wearing the goggles, the teacher had students perform exercises such as walking in a straight line, shooting a ball at a garbage can, and standing on one leg. Id., ¶ 3. While participating in these exercises some of the students lost their balance, slipped or stumbled. Id. In addition to the above exercises, the teacher also arranged the classroom desks into three rows and instructed students to walk in between the rows and recover a tennis ball thrown by the teacher. Id., ¶ 4. During this particular exercise, some of the students collided and slid on the floor. Id., ¶ 6. Even after these initial problems, the exercise continued and one of the students tripped and hit her mouth on a desktop. Id. As a result of her injuries, the student lost one tooth, fractured others, and ultimately had to have multiple root canals and crown work done on her teeth. Id., ¶¶ 7-9. ¶ 55 The court of appeals concluded that the known and compelling danger exception applied and thus precluded immunity. Id., ¶ 20. The court of appeals reasoned that despite the obvious hazards and knowledge of previous students falling, the teacher continued the exercise and took no precautions to minimize or prevent injury. Id., ¶ 19. Additionally, the court of appeals reasoned that in Voss, the teacher had only one reasonable choice to prevent or minimize danger, which was to stop the activity. Id., ¶ 20. The court of appeals contrasted the teacher's choice with the scenario that the police officer faced in Lodl. Recall that in Lodl, the police officer was called out to an intersection where traffic lights were no longer working. Lodl, 253 Wis.2d 323, ¶¶ 6-8, 646 N.W.2d 314. This court concluded that [w]hile the circumstances posed by the uncontrolled intersection were certainly known and dangerous, the situation nonetheless allowed for the exercise of the officer's discretion as to the mode of response. Id., ¶ 46. As a result, the police officer did not have a ministerial duty to perform manual traffic control. Id. Rather, he could have chosen to control traffic with portable signs, flares, or flashing squad lights. Id., ¶ 47. ¶ 56 In the case at hand, the danger does not give rise to a ministerial duty because there is no known and compelling danger of such force that the time, mode, and occasion for performance is evident with such certainty that nothing remains for the exercise of discretion. Noffke and Bakke were performing a stunt that was less difficult than what they had performed in the past. Bakke was a trained spotter. Noffke and Bakke thought they could safely perform the stunt. Unlike in Cords where the situation was so compellingly dangerous and known that the park manager had no choice but to put up a sign or warn his superiors, the danger in the case at hand was not so compellingly dangerous as to remove all discretion. Moreover, unlike in Voss where only one action could have been taken, the cheerleading coach in this case had a wide range of acts that could have been used to prevent injury. In fact, the coach did exercise her discretion and provided a spotter in order to help prevent injury. ¶ 57 Again, Noffke argues that the coach did not act appropriately because she did not provide mats even though Bakke and Noffke had never before performed the stunt together. This assertion, however, sets forth a negligence argument rather than an argument that the danger gave rise to a ministerial duty. The immunity defense assumes negligence. Lodl, 253 Wis.2d 323, ¶ 17, 646 N.W.2d 314. While arguably mats should be provided when cheerleaders are attempting any stunt for the first time, this is not relevant to our known and compelling danger analysis. As discussed before, mats were not a requirement. Here, the danger was not so known and compelling that the coach had no choice and no discretion but to provide mats for the cheerleaders.