Turner v. Nelson, 342 S.W.3d 866

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' reversal of a Fayette Circuit Court summary judgment for Turner.
The trial court granted Turner summary judgment on qualified official immunity in a case brought by Nelson, individually and as next friend of F.B.
Facts involve five-year-old students F.B. and C.Y. in Turner's kindergarten class; alleged touching incidents in November 2005; Turner initially separated the students and discussed conduct with C.Y.; later reports and investigations occurred at the school and with law enforcement.
Nelson alleged Turner failed to exercise ordinary supervision and to report alleged abuse as required by KRS 620.030.
The Court held KRS 620.030(1) does not mandatorily apply here because the alleged abuse involved a peer child, not a parent/guardian; Turner’s actions were discretionary; Turner is entitled to qualified official immunity.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in Turner’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does KRS 620.030(1) compel reporting when a peer-child touches another child?	Nelson argues the statute mandates reporting any suspected abuse by a child toward another child.	Turner argues the statute targets abuse by a parent/guardian or person with custodial control, not peer-child incidents.	KRS 620.030(1) does not apply; no genuine issue for trial.
Does KRS 620.030(2) expand the mandatory reporting duty for teachers when not requested to report?	Nelson contends subsections (1) and (2) collectively impose broad mandatory duties on teachers.	Turner notes (2) applies only if a written report is requested and does not broaden (1)'s duty.	KRS 620.030(2) does not create an independent, broader duty; it only adds if requested.
Are Turner's acts discretionary such that qualified official immunity applies to negligent supervision and alleged reporting failure?	Nelson argues Turner’s duty was ministerial under KRS 620.030; immunity does not apply.	Turner contends her supervision-related actions were discretionary and protected by qualified immunity.	Turner's actions were discretionary; qualified official immunity applies.

Commonwealth v. Allen, 980 S.W.2d 278 (Ky. 1998) (interprets KRS 620.030(1) narrowly where abused by peers was not applicable)
Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky.2001) (qualified immunity for discretionary acts in uncertain environments)
Williams v. Kentucky Department of Education, 113 S.W.3d 145 (Ky.2003) (distinguishes discretionary acts from ministerial supervisory duties)
Stratton v. Commonwealth, 182 S.W.3d 516 (Ky.2006) (agency investigations involve discretion protected by immunity)
Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235 (Ky.2010) (discretionary nature of supervisory actions in activities like camping)
Beckham v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, 873 S.W.2d 575 (Ky.1994) (statutory interpretation of reporting standards)