Marson v. Thomason
2014 Ky. LEXIS 167
| Ky. | 2014Background
- 12-year-old Anthony Thomason (legally blind) fell 6–8 feet from gym bleachers at South Floyd Middle School when a retracted section was not fully extended; he was injured.
- Parents sued school principals (Martin, Marson) and a teacher (Hamilton) individually and in official capacities for negligence: failing to extend bleachers and inadequate supervision.
- Trial court denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity; Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part; this interlocutory appeal concerns only qualified immunity for the individual defendants.
- Facts: custodians routinely extended the bleachers each morning; principals assigned morning duties (custodians to prepare gym, teachers to supervise); Hamilton performed bus duty and led students into the gym the morning of the fall.
- Custodian who actually extended the bleachers was not a party; principals did not perform maintenance tasks themselves and generally supervised/assigned staff rather than carrying out routine tasks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the principals’ alleged failures (ensuring bleachers extended; supervising staff) are ministerial or discretionary for qualified immunity | Thomason: principals had duty to provide safe environment; failure to ensure bleachers extended and supervise is ministerial => no immunity | Principals: duties were general/administrative; assigning tasks and overseeing staff are discretionary operational/policy functions => immunity | Held: acts were discretionary for principals; qualified immunity applies to Martin and Marson |
| Whether the teacher’s (Hamilton) supervision/bus-duty tasks are ministerial or discretionary | Thomason: Hamilton had routine, specific bus-duty responsibilities to coordinate students and watch for safety hazards => ministerial => no immunity | Hamilton: contends duties were discretionary and situational, entitling him to immunity | Held: Hamilton’s bus-duty supervision was ministerial; no qualified immunity (case remanded to determine negligence) |
| Procedural posture: interlocutory review of immunity question | Thomason: immunity should not bar suit against individuals performing ministerial acts | Defendants: seek dismissal under qualified immunity before trial | Held: interlocutory appeal limited to immunity; court reversed Court of Appeals as to principals and affirmed as to teacher |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (defines ministerial vs. discretionary acts for qualified immunity)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (courts should avoid second-guessing policy decisions in tort suits)
- Williams v. Kentucky Dept. of Educ., 113 S.W.3d 145 (Ky. 2003) (teacher’s supervisory duties can be ministerial)
- Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235 (Ky. 2010) (distinguishes teacher supervision from other supervisory contexts)
- Upchurch v. Clinton County, 330 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. 1959) (ministerial act defined as obedience to orders or duties that are absolute and certain)
- Whitt v. Reed, 239 S.W.2d 489 (Ky. 1951) (official may have ministerial maintenance duties if specifically assigned)