 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Clark v. Daviess County3/14/2003
ording to the county road engineer, money for sign expense was readily available in the Road Department's budget, and employees did not need fiscal court approval to maintain signs for the safe condition of the roadway. Thus, the record indicates that the actions (or omissions) of the county Road Department employees did not involve"good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment." Yanero at 522. Instead, the actions (or omissions) of the county Road Department employees required"only obedience to the orders of others," a duty"involving merely execution of a specific act arising from fixed and designated facts." Id.
We hold that the disputed acts (or omissions) of the individual employees as to the replacement of the missing sign fall within the definition of a ministerial function as set out by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Yanero, supra. There is evidence of record to support the appellants' contention that the sign warning of the curve was down and that it required immediate replacement. This evidence also supports the appellants= allegation that Clark's death stemmed from possible negligence of county Road Department employees.
Consequently, we reverse that portion of the judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court that granted official immunity from liability to the those employees of the county Road Department who were responsible for the performance of ministerial acts relating to replacement of the missing sign. This matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
|