Cited by

6 (Minn. 1998) (holding that a city sidewalk inspector who failed to perform the ministerial function of ordering the immediate repair of a sidewalk, as required by a city ordinance, was not entitled to common-law official immunity).

Discretionary conduct involves “individual professional judgment that necessarily reflects the professional goal and factors of a situation.”

But public officials “have a duty to adhere to ordinances and statutes.”

5 (“The [official immunity] doctrine is designed to protect officials from the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action.” (quotation omitted)); Janklow, d at 716 (stating that “official immunity protects more individual, professional judgment”); Elwood v. County of Ri

(holding that an ordinance imposed a ministerial duty on a sidewalk city inspector to immediately repair “any sidewalk slab projecting more than one inch above the adjacent slab”); Mumm, d at 491-92 (holding that t he policy imposed a ministerial duty because it required officers to disc

See, (holding that sidewalk inspector lacked official immunity when duty requiring immediate repair of sidewalk was set by city ordinance).

-17 (Minn. 1998) (noting that to deny a government employer vicarious immunity where the acting official was not named in the suit would allow plaintiffs to defeat immunity by declining to name the official as a defendant).

Wiederholt v. City of 6 Minneapolis, see also Vassallo ex rel.

4 Though the building security employee was not named as a party in this suit, “a government employer may generally invoke the doctrine of vicarious official immunity even if the individual official whose conduct is at issue is not a named defendant in the suit.”

apply.”); -17 (Minn. 1998) (failure to repair sidewalk); Hansen v. City of S aint Paul, -51 (Minn. 1974) (failure to prevent dangerous dogs from roaming city streets).

roeder, d at 506-08 (holding that road grader’s decision to grade against traffic was discretionary b ut operation of the grader after sunset without activating lights was “clearly ministerial”); Anderson, d at 657-59 (holding that unwritten protocol imposed ministerial duty on high -school teacher concernin g safe operation of table saw); , 316 (Minn. 1998) (holding that city ordinance imposed ministerial duty on sidewalk inspector to immediately repair broken sidewalk slabs); Williamson v. Cai

A ministerial duty is a duty in which the individual has no discretion in implementing; instead , “it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” (quotatio n omitted).

“[V]icarious official immunity protects the government entity from suit based on the official immunity of its employee.” Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis , d 312, 316 (Minn. 1998).

at 663-65; Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis , ; Meier v. City of Columbia Heights , -67 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Dec.

Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis , , 316 (Minn. 1998).

But failing to name an individual defendant in the complaint, as is the case here, is not a bar to vicarious immunity, because denying immunity on that basis “would allow plaintiffs to defeat immunity by declining to name the official as a defendant.”

However, we note that “a government employer may generally invoke the doctrine of vicarious official immunity even if the individual official whose conduct is at issue is not a named defendant in the suit.”

(holding discretionary decisions involve “individual professional judgment that necessarily reflects the professional goal and factors of a situation”).

(citations and quotation omitted).

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 t

at 490-91 () (internal quotation marks omitted).

In contrast, a duty is discretionary if it involves “more individual professional judgment that necessarily re- *491 fleets the professional goal and factors of a situation.”

(holding that a city sidewalk inspector’s failure to comply with a city ordinance to immediately repair broken a sidewalk defeated the inspector’s claim of official immunity).

-16 (Minn.1998); see also Watson, d at 414 .