Opinion ID: 2275902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Individual Government Employees

Text: The individual employees were sued in their individual capacities. The trial court dismissed the claims against them based on its conclusion that the allegations against the employees concerned discretionary acts and, thus, they were entitled to a qualified official immunity defense. See Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 521-22. (Qualified official immunity applies to the negligent performance by a public officer or employee of (1) discretionary acts or functions, i.e., those involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment; (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of the employee's authority. (Internal citations omitted)). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court based on its conclusion that the acts of the individual employees clearly fall within the definition of ministerial function as set out by the Supreme Court in Yanero v. Davis .  We agree with the Court of Appeals up to a point. Generally, the maintenance of traffic-control devices is a ministerial function. See, e.g., Estate of Clark ex rel. Mitchell v. Daviess County, Ky. App., 105 S.W.3d 841, 846 (2003). (Alleged failure to replace a highway warning sign is ministerial in nature.) Shearer v. Hall, Ky., 399 S.W.2d 701, 704 (1966). ([A] public officer is liable for personal injuries resulting from his negligence, where the duty imposed on him of keeping the streets or highways in repair is ministerial or mandatory in character, and not judicial or discretionary.) Thus, we believe that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the allegations against the individual employees consisted entirely of discretionary acts. But the record is not sufficiently developed to determine which, if any, of the individual employees had the duty to maintain the traffic-control devices at issue in this case. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals' holding on this issue in as much as it reverses the trial court's dismissal of the individual employees because they were entitled to qualified immunity.