Juan Edward Shariss v. City of Bloomington, 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 76

On March 2, 2011, City of Bloomington snowplow driven by Daniel Pawlak, stopped in a queue, reversed to allow a school bus to pass, and struck Juan Shariss’s van as Shariss exited a nearby gas-station driveway.
Pawlak was not actively engaged in plowing at the moment; he reversed based on a City ‘‘standard operating procedure’’ to maintain traffic flow.
Shariss sued Pawlak and the City for negligence seeking >$50,000. The City and Pawlak moved for summary judgment asserting common-law official immunity for Pawlak and vicarious official immunity for the City.
The district court denied summary judgment. The City and Pawlak appealed interlocutorily, arguing the act was discretionary and thus immune; Shariss did not file a brief on appeal.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the conduct was discretionary or ministerial and whether immunity applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pawlak’s act was discretionary or ministerial for common-law official immunity	Shariss: Pawlak performed a ministerial act (backing up) and may have done so negligently, so no immunity	Pawlak/City: reversing was part of snow-removal judgment and balancing of operational goals, thus discretionary and immune	Held: Ministerial — reversing while not actively plowing was a simple, definite act requiring care; no common-law immunity
Whether the City has vicarious official immunity based on Pawlak’s immunity	Shariss: City cannot be immune if employee not immune	City: entitled to vicarious immunity if Pawlak immune	Held: City not entitled to vicarious immunity because Pawlak not immune

Anderson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004) (framework distinguishing discretionary vs. ministerial acts for official immunity)
Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2006) (discusses focus on nature of act; ministerial operational failures not immune)
In re Alexandria Accident of Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. App. 1997) (snowplow operator’s discretionary snow-removal decisions may be immune when weighing weather, road, traffic)
Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2014) (tests for immunity and willful/malicious exception)
Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1992) (high-speed chase discretionary; illustrates emergency discretionary decisions)
Williamson v. Cain, 245 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. 1976) (simple, definite job acts are ministerial and not immune)
Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. 2006) (discretionary duty involves professional judgment reflecting situational factors)