Gaither v. Justice & Public Safety Cabinet
447 S.W.3d 628
Ky.2014Background
- Gaither, as confidential informant, aided KSP in drug investigations; his anonymity was publicly compromised; he testified before grand juries in two counties; a final buy/bust with Noel led to Gaither’s death; Board held KSP acted ministerially in four respects; Franklin Circuit Court reversed, Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court reverses and remands for correct damages calculation.
- Board found four ministerial acts: escorting Gaither to courthouses; allowing in-person grand jury testimony; failing to intercede in final buy/bust; failing to report loss of contact.
- Gaither’s identity was publicly disclosed leading to foreseeable risk; the Court held that using a compromised informant in a buy/bust violated a known rule and was a ministerial act.
- Statutory cap at the time was $100,000 but later amended to $200,000; the Court held new cap governs award at time of award.
- Damages: Board’s award $168,729.90 miscalculated; remanded to enter $148,787.12 based on lost earnings, funeral costs, and fault apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using a compromised informant is a ministerial act | Gaither; ministerial | KSP; discretionary | Yes; ministerial act violated by reusing compromised informant |
| Whether KSP owed a duty to Gaither | Estate; duty arises from special relationship | Cabinet; no duty | Yes; duty exists under police-informant relationship with supervision |
| Whether Noel’s murder is a superseding cause | Noel not superseding; foreseeable | Noel superseding | No; not a superseding cause; KSP liable for fault |
| Correct statutory cap applicable to award | Pre-2000 cap governs | Post-2000 cap governs | Post-2000 cap ($200,000) controls at time of award |
| Damages amount consistent with record | Award consistent with evidence | Overstated | Remand for correct award of $148,787.12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky.2001) (ministerial vs discretionary duty based on rule enforcement)
- Upchurch v. Clinton Cnty., 330 S.W.2d 428 (Ky.1959) (ministerial acts defined by fixed facts and imperative duties)
- Sexton, Dep’t of Highways v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.3d 29 (Ky.2008) (ministerial duty can arise from notice of danger even without statute)
- Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235 (Ky.2010) (common law duties can render an act ministerial)
- Collins v. Hudson, 48 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2001) (special relationship limits and adoption of Ashby/Fryman test)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1948) (informant anonymity and retaliation concerns)