Official immunity is an affirmative defense that protects a governmental employee from personal liability and, in doing so, preserves a governmental employer's sovereign immunity from suit for vicarious liability. A governmental employee is entitled to official immunity for the good-faith performance of discretionary duties within the scope of the employee's authority.
Common law official immunity is based on the necessity of public officials to act in the public interest with confidence and without the hesitation that could arise from having their judgment continually questioned by extended litigation. The public would suffer if government officials, who must exercise judgment and discretion in their jobs, were subject to civil lawsuits that second-guessed their decisions.
Denying the affirmative defense of official immunity to public officials in such circumstances would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation. Certainly, public officials may err in the performance of their duties.
The existence of immunity acknowledges this fact, but recognizes that the risk of some error is preferable to intimidation from action at all. In addition, some of the most capable candidates would be deterred from entering public service if heavy burdens on their private resources from monetary liability were a likely prospect for errors in judgment.
Thus, government employees are entitled to official immunity from suits arising from the performance of their (1) discretionary duties in (2) good faith as long as they are (3) acting within the scope of their authority.
A Governmental Employee's Discretionary Governmental Acts Are Generally Cloaked With Immunity But Ministerial Acts Are Not
As a general rule, official immunity from suit attaches to a government employee's official actions only when that employee's job requires the exercise of personal judgment and discretion. On the other hand, a government employee's performance of duties that are merely ministerial in nature is not cloaked with official immunity.
Ministerial acts are those for which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. If the public official must obey an order, without having any choice in complying, the act is ministerial. If an action involves personal deliberation, decision, and judgment, however, it is discretionary.
The distinction between these two categories is often one of degree because any official act that is ministerial will still require the actor to use some discretion in its performance.
In Kentucky, official immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government employees from personal liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties. This immunity applies when the employee is performing discretionary acts in good faith and within the scope of their authority. Discretionary acts require personal judgment and decision-making, as opposed to ministerial acts, which are prescribed by law and leave no room for individual discretion. Official immunity is based on the principle that public officials should be able to perform their duties without fear of litigation, which could deter capable individuals from public service or lead to decision-making based on fear of lawsuits rather than on the public interest. However, this immunity does not extend to ministerial acts, which are routine duties carried out with clear guidelines that do not require personal judgment. The distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts is crucial in determining whether official immunity applies, and it is often a matter of degree, as even ministerial acts may involve some level of discretion.
