JEFFERSON CITY — The Supreme Court of Missouri issued permanent writs of prohibition following the deaths of four state employees during a work-zone traffic accident.
The Supreme Court of Missouri, in a unanimous 6-0 decision authored by Judge Ginger K. Gooch, made the previous writs of prohibition permanent in the June 4 opinion.
The court ruled that official immunity protects the employees from the alleged claims. The lawsuits did not allege facts sufficient to apply either of the narrow exceptions to immunity, the judges found.
The employees’ actions were discretionary rather than ministerial, and there were no allegations suggesting that the employees intended to cause the deaths.
Austin Jarvis and Tonya Musskopf filed a lawsuit against Stanley McFadden, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC), and four MHTC employees—Michael Love, Gary Ludwick, Kristina Jordan and James Henson—alleging wrongful death of Kaitlyn Anderson and her unborn son, Jaxx Jarvis, who died after being struck by a vehicle while working on a highway.
Anderson, a maintenance worker, was striping an intersection without the required protective vehicle.
The employees were aware of Anderson's requests for safer work conditions during her pregnancy but assigned her to hazardous tasks without necessary safety measures.
Jarvis and Musskopf claimed the employees violated MHTC’s non-discretionary safety policies by failing to provide a protective vehicle, proper training, and a safety plan. They asserted that the employees acted maliciously, intentionally and in bad faith.
The employees moved for judgment on the pleadings, citing official immunity, which protects public officials from liability for discretionary acts performed in their official capacity.
The circuit court partially sustained and partially overruled the motions, leaving some claims pending.
The employees then sought writs of prohibition from the appellate court, which were denied, leading them to seek permanent writs from the higher court.
The higher court analyzed the doctrine of official immunity, noting it shields public officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken during their official duties.
Two exceptions to official immunity exist — when a public official fails to perform a ministerial duty required by law or acts with malice or bad faith. The court found that the employees' actions were discretionary, not ministerial.
Tasks such as ensuring the placement of protective vehicles and providing training and safety plans involve judgment and decision-making, making them discretionary duties protected by official immunity.
The court also determined that the allegations of malice and bad faith in the petition were conclusory without factual support indicating an intent to cause harm.
To overcome official immunity, there must be allegations of actual intent to cause injury, which were absent in this case. The employees’ failure to follow policies could be seen as negligence, but not malicious intent to cause harm.
The court concluded that the pleadings did not establish either of the exceptions to official immunity.
Therefore, the employees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their defense of official immunity.
The preliminary writs of prohibition were made permanent, barring the claims against the employees.
Attorneys declined to comment. A spokesperson for MoDOT said the agency was not issuing comment on the case.
Supreme Court of Missouri case numbers: SC100197, SC100198, SC100199, SC100200