Susan J. Domino appeals from the order and judgment dismissing her complaint against Walworth county. The issue is whether the actions of certain Walworth County employees fall within the immunity provisions of sec. 893.80(4), Stats., which provides, in part, as follows:
No suit may be brought against any . . . political corporation, governmental subdivision . . . for the intentional torts of its officers, officials, agents or employes nor may any suit be brought against such corporation, . . . or against its officers, officials, agents or employes for acts done in the exercise of legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
*490
Domino was injured when her motorcycle struck a tree which had fallen across a road in the Town of Bloomfield, Walworth county. The Walworth County Sheriff’s Department on-duty dispatcher, Patricia Salimes, was notified of the downed tree on July 30, 1979 at 12:55 a.m. Salimes assigned a squad to investigate the report at 1:15 a.m. While enroute, the squad was diverted by the dispatcher to an accident involving personal injuries. No other squads were reassigned to investigate the downed tree report, nor were any Town of Bloomfield agencies notified. The sheriff’s department had contacted the town on other occasions when downed trees blocked town roads. Salimes acknowledged that she could call local town officials to respond to emergency situations. The trial court found the actions of the sheriff’s department employees, including Salimes, to be discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, under the language of
Lister v. Board of Regents,
absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion.
Id.
at 301,
Applying the above language of
Lister
to a fact situation where a manager of a state park failed to place signs warning the public of dangerous conditions on a nature trail or to advise his superiors of such conditions, the supreme court in
Cords v. Anderson,
The question here is whether the defendant Anderson had an absolute, certain, or imperative duty to either place the signs warning the public of the dangerous conditions existing on the upper trail or to advise his superiors of the condition with a view toward adequate protection of the public responding to the invitation to use this facility. There comes a time when “the buck stops.” Anderson knew the terrain at the glen was dangerous particularly at night; he was in a position as park manager to do something about it; he failed to do anything about it. He is liable for the breach of this duty.
Id.
at 541,
We are satisfied that the facts of this case fall within the actions contemplated by
Cords
rather than
Lister.
Walworth County argues that Salimes was required to exercise discretion at various points in time with respect to the event in question. We agree. However, simply allowing for the exercise of discretion does not suffice to bring the actions under the blanket of immunity provided by sec. 893.80(4), Stats., when the facts or the allegations reveal a duty so clear and absolute that it falls within the concept of a ministerial duty. Domino appropriately observes that adoption of Walworth County’s position in this case would effectively emasculate the holding of the supreme court in
Holytz v. City of Milwaukee,
Although embracing different facts,
Foss v. Town of Kronenwetter,
Sec. 895.43(3), Stats., confers statutory immunity on municipalities and their officers for acts done in the exercise of specified discretionary functions. In a series of cases involving immunity with respect to highway signs, the supreme court has established a general rule that once a legislative or quasi-legislative decision to place a highway sign is made, negligence in -placement may be and negligence in maintenance is actionable; however, the cases distinguish placement from maintenance.
Id.
at 101,
With the assistance of these cases, we have little difficulty in concluding that, at least, the actions of Salimes were not discretionary so as to fall within the immunity provisions of sec. 893.80(4), Stats. Rather, Salimes’ dispatcher duties, under the facts of this case, appear absolute, certain or imperative within the mean
*493
ing of
Cords.
The interpretation of a statute and the review of a summary judgment determination are questions of law which we review
de novo
and to which we owe the trial court no special deference.
Katze v. Randolph & Scott Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,
CROSS-APPEAL
Walworth County contends that Domino’s attorney had previously settled her claim for $25,000. The trial court conducted a hearing on the question of the authority given to Domino’s counsel. Domino testified that she never intended to give her attorney authority to settle her claim on the terms proposed. The principal statement of Domino relied upon by Walworth County in support of its claim of a binding settlement was: “If that’s all you can do, that’s all you can do.” This statement is equivocal and capable of various interpretations.
The trial court found that Domino did not give her attorney the authority to settle the matter on the terms proposed. A trial court’s determination of whether a client has given the attorney authority to settle the claim will not be reversed if it is supported by credible evidence.
See Krueger v. Herman Mutual Insurance Co.,
By the Court. — Orders and judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Notes
Holytz was codified originally in sec. 895.43, Stats. (1965), which was renumbered as sec. 893.80, Stats., in 1979 Wis. Laws, ch. 323.