 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sloas v. Rowan County9/19/2003
ms of negligence brought against Hall and Henderson in their official capacities are barred under the doctrine of official immunity and the trial court's granting of summary judgment on these claims is affirmed.
Sloas also alleged in his complaint that Hall and Rowan County should be held vicariously liable for Henderson's alleged negligent supervision of the work site where Sloas was injured, and that Rowan County, Hall, and Henderson should all be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Carl Lewis, the inmate who cut the tree that fell on Sloas. As we discussed previously, Rowan County enjoys sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of either Hall or Lewis. Similarly, to the extent Sloas's claims against Hall and Henderson are premised solely on their representative or official status, and to the extent Sloas has failed to allege any personal wrongdoing on their part, the doctrine of vicarious liability does not apply. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment on all of Sloas's claims of vicarious liability against Rowan County and on his claims of vicarious liability against Hall and Henderson to the extent that the claims are based on Hall's and Henderson's official capacities.
Sloas's only remaining claims are against Hall and Henderson in their individual capacities. We conclude that there is a genuine issue as to material facts concerning allegations of personal wrongdoing on the part of both Hall and Henderson which preclude the granting of summary judgment on the claims against them in their individual capacities.
We once again turn to Yanero, where the Supreme Court stated:
hen sued in their individual capacities, public officers and employees enjoy only qualified official immunity, which affords protection from damages liability for good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment. Qualified official immunity applies to the negligent performance by a public officer or employee of (1) discretionary acts or functions, i.e., those involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment, (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of the employee's authority [emphases added] [citations omitted].
The Court went on to explain how "bad faith" can be shown, thereby removing an official's conduct from the protection of qualified official immunity:
Thus, in the context of qualified official immunity, "bad faith" can be predicated on a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee 's position presumptively would have known was afforded to a person in the plaintiff's position, i.e., objective unreasonableness; or if the officer or employee willfully or maliciously intended to harm the plaintiff or acted with a corrupt motive.
In the case sub judice, we believe there are genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Sloas's statutory rights were violated in a manner that would tend to show "bad faith" on the part of Hall and Henderson, thereby rendering summary judgment improper. The provisions under KRS 441.125 that were in effect on the day Sloas was injured provided in part:
(2) Pursuant to a written policy adopted by the fiscal court on the advice of the jailer, the jailer may permit certain prisoners to work on community service related projects. Before a prisoner is permitted to work in this type project, the county judge/executive or his designee shall sign his approval to the prisoner's participation.
(3) In determining which prisoners may be worked on community se
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|