23. Preserve Officers' Immunity in Most Collisions.

The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers are immune from personal liability for most service-related traffic collisions.

THE ISSUE:  On Christmas Day, 2009. Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Lee Majeski was in hot pursuit of two burglary suspects.  As he approached the vicinity of the suspects, he kept his emergency lights on, but turned off his siren so as to not alert the suspects.  Vehicles had pulled over at the intersection in response to his lights and siren before he turned off the siren, and he saw no approaching vehicles as he approached the intersection.  But upon entering the intersection, he collided with Jolene Vasallo who was advancing on the cross street.

Vasallo sued the County and Deputy Majeski individually.

The district court found that, because Deputy Majeski’s actions were discretionary and not ministerial and did not involve a willful or malicious wrong, he was entitled to official immunity. 

The court of appeals reversed and remanded for additional fact finding.

On February 12, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the district court's finding that Deputy Majeski was shielded by immunity.  See here.  

     First, the Supreme Court held that "because we hold, based on the undisputed facts, that Deputy Majeski did not violate any ministerial duty created by these statutory and policy provisions, we reverse the court of appeals and remand to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of appellants."

     Second, the Supreme Court held that: "In analyzing the applicability of official immunity, a court must first determine whether a particular duty is discretionary or ministerial.  Only if the duty is determined to be ministerial is it then proper to consider the question of compliance with the duty.  

     Third, the Supreme Court held:  "The requirement of state law that an emergency vehicle, “upon approaching a red or stop signal or any stop sign shall slow down as necessary for safety, but may proceed cautiously past such red or stop sign or signal,” creates a discretionary duty." 

     Fourth, the Supreme Court held:  "The requirement of state law that a law enforcement vehicle, upon approaching a red or stop signal or any stop sign, “shall sound its siren or display at least one lighted red light to the front,” creates a ministerial duty with which the defendant complied." 

     Fifth, the Supreme Court held:  "The requirement of Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Policy 6-402 to use “both red lights and siren . . . when responding to an emergency” does not create a ministerial duty that was violated by the defendant in this case. "

     Sixth, the Supreme Court held:  "The requirement of Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Policy 6-402 “to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons” creates a discretionary duty." 

     Seventh, the Supreme Court held:  "The exception to immunity for malicious acts permits liability only when the official willfully or maliciously violates a known right. "

Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding of immunity for Deputy Majeski in this collision.