indicating that driving cars, posting warning signs, and moving office furniture are activities for which “immunity serves no worthwhile purpose.”
How later courts described this case
- indicating that driving cars, posting warning signs, and moving office furniture are activities for which “immunity serves no worthwhile purpose.”
- explaining how qualified official immunity applies to a fire chief sued in his personal capacity for his official actions which include, pursuant to KRS 75.070(1), the provision of emergency services
- finding that the exercise of professional judgment is more likely to be a discretionary act
- “[T]he doctrine of stare decisis remains an ever-present guidepost in our undertaking. Stare Decisis compels us to decide every case with deference to precedent. Thus, it is with anything but a cavalier attitude that we broach the subject of changing the ebb and flow of settled law [and while], we do not feel that the doctrine compels us to unquestioningly follow prior decisions when this Court finds itself otherwise compelled, we recognize that stare decisis [is] the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VENTERS, Justice,
Concurring:
I concur with Justice Scott’s opinion. At the risk of extending an already lengthy series of opinions, I submit that regardless of the immunity issue the Ap-pellee’s complaint does not state a claim for which relief may be granted. Its only basis for asserting liability is the claim that Appellants negligently “failed to expeditiously extinguish the fire” at Appellee’s business. We are informed by Appellee’s counsel at oral argument that the only act or omission of the Caneyville VFD deemed negligent by Appellees was that it lacked sufficient manpower and equipment to defeat the blaze. The same could be said of *813 any fire department at any fire where property is damaged. There is no allegation that members of the Caneyville VFD caused any injury or damage to Appellee, beyond that damage caused by the fire. A fire department does not insure property owners from fire losses, and it has no duty to a property owner to save his property. The record before us consists of nothing more than the complaint, the motion to dismiss, the trial court’s ruling, and the appellate pleadings. No answer was even filed. We should not scrap the jural rights doctrine or undertake a major re-evaluation of governmental immunity on what I perceive is an insufficient claim and an exceedingly sparse record. A fire department is not liable for failing, due to its lack of equipment and manpower, to “expeditiously extinguish the fire.”