# Marson v. Thomason

> Kentucky Supreme Court · April 17, 2014 · 438 S.W.3d 292

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5282913

## Case

- **Full name:** Joe MARSON Carolyn Martin and Eddie Hamilton v. Sherry THOMASON, Individually Roger Thomason, Individually And Roger Thomason, As Next Friend Of Anthony Thomason
- **Court:** Kentucky Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 17, 2014
- **Citations:** 438 S.W.3d 292; 2014 Ky. LEXIS 167; 2014 WL 1499498
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cunningham
- **Judges:** Abramson, Cunningham, Keller, Minton, Noble, Scott, Venters
- **Cited by:** 92 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5282913

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[t]he distinction between discretionary acts and mandatory acts is essentially the difference between making higher-level decisions and giving orders to effectuate those decisions, and simply following orders”
- stating that discretionary acts are those which “call[] for a ‘good faith judgment call[] made in a legally uncertain environment.’” (quoting Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522 )
- stating that discretionary acts involve “the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment”
- recognizing that “specific instructions could make such duties required and thus ministerial.”

## Opinion text

CUNNINGHAM, J.,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
I readily concur with most of the excellent analysis by Justice Noble. I dissent, however, that the teacher on bus duty, Eddie Hamilton, was performing a ministerial duty in regard to the placement of the bleachers in the gym. Whether the bleachers were pulled in or extended, or only half way extended on this particular day, would not have been under his direction. As the majority opinion states: “The teachers on duty supervised the children in the morning, but that clearly did not include the specific duty of extending the bleachers.” Therefore, the duties of Hamilton were purely discretionary. In my opinion, he would also have qualified immunity. To that portion of the opinion, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5282913. Public record. Not legal advice.