Davis v. Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the requirements of section 304.022 did not “abolish, abrogate, or in any way modify official immunity”
• finding an officer can be entitled to official immunity even if he fails to activate emergency lights and sirens as required by section 304.022, because a particular emergency might justify a less conspicuous, or even a silent, approach
• finding no ministerial duty to comply with traffic laws when the officer had discretion in how to respond to an emergency by deciding what speed to travel, the best route to take, and choosing to activate or not activate lights and sirens
• “Whether an act is discretionary or ministerial depends on the degree of reason and judgment required to perform the act.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)
• “An act is discretionary when it requires the exercise of reason in the adaption of means to an end, and discretion in determining how or whether an act should be done or a course pursued.”
• “[The] doctrine of respondeat superior does not provide a shield to government employers where the statute provides that the government will be liable for the actions of its employees in all cases involving the operation of motor vehicles within the course of employment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).