Cited by

“A discretionary act requires the exercise of individual judgment.”

Burns, d at 20; (“Official immunity applies when the official’s conduct involves the exercise of judgment or discretion, but malicious conduct is not immunized.”); Vassallo ex rel.

y for decision to engage in car chase, which involved weighing many factors to exercise “significant, independent judgment and discretion”); Majeski, d at 463-64 (holding that police officer’s decision to proceed through intersection at high speed with 7 squad car’s lights on but sirens off was discretionary); (holding that paramedic’s driving in response to emergency was discretionary); Watson ex rel.

(concluding that emergency-vehicle driver was entitled to official immunity even though driver exceeded statutory exemption by failing to yield to pedestrian).

“In order to find malice, the court must find that ‘the wrongful act so unreasonably put at risk the safety and welfare of others that as a matter of law it could not be excused 10 or justified.’” Vassallo, d at 465 ().

d 921, 923 (Minn. 1998).

at 490-91; see Vassallo, d at 463-65 (holding that police officer’s decision to proceed through intersection at high speed with squad car’s lights on but sirens off was discretionary); Kari v. City of Maplewood , (holding that paramedic’s driving in response to emergency was discretionary); Watson v. Metro Transi t Comm’n , (holding that bus driver’s decision not to stop bus when gang members assaulted and threatened to kill passengers was discretionary); Pletan v. Gaines

Kari v. City of Maplewood

At the second step, a public official ’s conduct will be deemed discretionary in nature if it “requires the exercise of individual judgment in carrying out the official’s duties.”

In contrast, a discretionary act “requires the exercise of individual judgment in carrying out the official’s duties.”

at 490-91 () (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Vassallo, d at 463-64 (holding that police officer’s decision to proceed through intersection at high speed with squad car’s lights on but sirens off was discretionary); (holding that paramedic’s driving in response to emergency was discretionary); Watson v. Metro Transit Comm’n, (holding that bus driver’s decision not to stop bus when gang members assaulted and threatened to kill passengers was discretionary); Pletan v. Gaines, 4

In order to find malice, the court must find that “the wrongful act so unreasonably put at risk the safety and welfare of others that as a matter of law it could not be excused or justified.”

11, (noting importance of identifying specific conduct at issue); (distinguishing discretionary from ministerial acts).

925 (Minn.1998) (holding that the conduct of a city ambulance driver, who struck and killed a pedestrian after failing to yield in a crosswalk, was entitled to the “broad category of immunity granted to officials responding to emergencies,” despite the fact that the driver had violated a state statute regarding

We have distinguished discretionary acts from ministerial acts by defining a discretionary act as one requiring “the exercise of individual judgment in carrying out the official’s duties.”

“A discretionary act requires the exercise of individual judgment in carrying out the official’s duties.” (citation omitted).

A ministerial act is “absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duly arising from fixed and designated fact.” (quotation omitted).

See, (recognizing immunity of a paramedic who hit pedestrian in crosswalk where witnesses testified paramedic had activated emergency lights and siren); Nisbet, d at 316, 319 (recognizing immunity of ambulance driver who hit another vehicle, but had “lights flashing and siren sounding”).