Court Opinion

ID: 9523405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:41:40.711689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:19.615642
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion too broadly interprets the holding in Peavler v. Monroe Cty,. Bd. of Com'rs (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 40. While our Supreme Court rejected the traditional ministerial/discretionary test to determine governmental immunity in favor of the planning/operational test, it does not necessarily follow that West's actions were not the result of a conscious balancing of risks and weighing of priorities.
The Court enumerated factors to consider which would normally indicate a finding of immunity. One of the factors regarding the nature of the conduct seems applicable here: "[wlhether the conduct involved the balancing of factors without reliance on a readily ascertainable rule or standard." West's actions could fall into this category. Further, historically the same type of teacher function decision making has been found to be immune. See Driscol et al. v. Delphi School Corp. (1972), 155 Ind.App. 56, 290 N.E.2d 769. It is not apparent that the Peavier decision would alter that finding.
Also, the test announced in Peavier may suffer from an infirmity similar to that inherent in the former test; that is, the difficulty in determining at what level of policy making does the division between planning and operation commence. It is not inconceivable that West's actions were or were based upon some level of policy making.
For the reasons above I would vote to affirm the trial court.