In an appeal from summary judgment, this court examines whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court's application of the law was erroneous. Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014). A genuine issue of fact exists when the evidence permits "reasonable persons to draw different conclusions."

In determining whether official immunity applies, we consider: "(1) the conduct at issue; (2) whether the conduct is discretionary or ministerial and, if ministerial, whether any ministerial duties were violated; and (3) if discretionary, whether the conduct was willful or malicious." Vasallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014).

The common-law doctrine of official immunity provides that "a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong." Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). The purpose of the official-immunity doctrine is to ensure that "individual government actors [are] able to perform their duties effectively, without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment."

The doctrine of official immunity protects public officials "charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of [their]judgment or discretion" from personal liability to individuals unless there is evidence of malice or willful wrongdoing. Vassallo ex. rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). The doctrine also provides "immunity from suit, not just from liability."

The doctrine of official immunity protects public officials against personal liability for discretionary conduct unless the public official is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong. Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014). The purpose of the doctrine is to "enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment."

"In an appeal from summary judgment, [this court] must determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law." Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014).

"Under the doctrine of official immunity, a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his or her judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong." Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). The doctrine provides immunity from suit, not just from liability.

The purpose of official immunity is to enable government actors "to perform their duties effectively, without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment." Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014).

Other jurisdictions have addressed similar issues with mixed outcomes. For example, North Las Vegas asserts that this court should follow the Minnesota Supreme Court’s reasoning in Vassallo v. Majeski, 842 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 2014).In Vassallo, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that, as relevant here, Minnesota’s emergency vehicle statute conferred discretion, and thus, discretionary-act immunity barred the plaintiff’s claims.

The common-law doctrine of official immunity provides that, in general, "a public official charged by law with duties which call for the exercise of his judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages." Vassallo ex rel. Brown v. Majeski , 842 N.W.2d 456, 462 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted) (alterations in original). The purpose of the official-immunity doctrine is to ensure that "individual government actors [are] able to perform their duties effectively, without fear of personal liability that might inhibit the exercise of their independent judgment."