2000-SC-000495-DG.pdf
Size: 938 kb
Date: 4/10/2003

•  None.

• Return to top

Under Yanero, the potential liability of a public employee for negligent acts again turns upon the distinction.between discretionary and ministerial functions. An employee is not liable for discretionary acts performed in good faith but is exposed to liability for those considered ministerial.

When a public official exercises a discretionary function, he is entitled to absolute immunity from liability.  Yanero, supra. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the members of the Daviess County Fiscal Court, the county engineers, and road foreman acting in their representative capacities with respect to their decision not to guard the disputed roadway.

We hold that the disputed acts (or omissions) of the individual employees as to the replacement of the missing sign.fall within the definition of a ministerial function as set out by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Yanero, supra.

Consequently, we reverse that portion of the judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court that granted official immunity from liability to the those employees of the county Road Department who were responsible for the performance of ministerial acts relating to replacement of the missing sign. This matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOTE - this case should be read in light of the recent Kentucky Supreme Court case of Lanier  v. Wal Mart which placed the burden on the business owner rather than the invitee. 2000-SC-001089-DG.pdf

Furthermore, the court failed to engage in any colloquy with C.G. so as to determine that he understood what he was admitting, its consequences, and the possible punishment that he could receive. As this court stated in D.R. v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 64 S.W.3d 292 (2001), The principles of the Boykin case apply to juvenile adjudications.