The “Paintsville Standard”: Qualified Official Immunity Bars Vicarious-Liability and Special-Relationship Claims Against Kentucky Public Entities

Introduction

City of Paintsville v. Haney, 2025-SC-0361-DG & 2024-SC-0074-DG, marks the most comprehensive modern exposition of Kentucky’s qualified official immunity doctrine, especially as it intersects with negligent-hiring/retention theories and the “special relationship” exception to the public-duty rule. The case arose after Donald Prater, Jr. died shortly after a physically contested arrest by Paintsville police officers Shane Cantrell and Zachary Stapleton, Johnson County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Tabor, and EMS/Fire Chief Rick Ratliff. Paula M. Haney, representing Prater’s estate, sued two clusters of defendants:

City defendants: City of Paintsville, Paintsville Police Department, Paintsville Fire Department, Officers Cantrell & Stapleton, and Chief Ratliff.
County defendants: Johnson County Sheriff’s Department and Deputy Tabor.

Claims sounded in wrongful death, battery, excessive force, negligence/gross negligence, and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision (NHTRS). The circuit court granted dismissal/summary judgment to every defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reinstated (1) the NHTRS counts against the City and Police Department, and (2) the excessive-force counts against the three officers pending a “special relationship” analysis. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court reinstated the circuit court’s total defense victory, clarifying crucial points of Kentucky public-official liability.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Thompson’s opinion (for a six-member majority, with one concurrence in results) “affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands” the Court of Appeals, but—critically— reinstates complete dismissal of all parties. The Court held:

The officers’ and fire chief’s actions were discretionary, within the scope of their authority, and in good faith; hence each is protected by qualified official immunity.
Because the first responders are immune, vicarious or derivative claims against their governmental employers fail ipso facto. That includes NHTRS theories.
The “special relationship” doctrine merely creates a duty element for negligence; it does not overcome qualified immunity once discretionary good-faith conduct is shown. Therefore the Court of Appeals erred in remanding for a special-relationship finding.
Discovery was not prematurely cut off; the plaintiff had “ample opportunity” and presented only speculation, not admissible evidence, to contradict the defense narrative.
CALGA, sovereign immunity and governmental immunity remain alternative shields, but the dispositive ground here is that the employees themselves are non-liable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) – Sets the tripartite test for qualified official immunity: (1) discretionary act, (2) within authority, (3) in good faith. Paintsville applies Yanero to law-enforcement use-of-force context.
Rowan Cty. v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469 (Ky. 2006) – Clarifies appellate de-novo review of immunity rulings; cited for distinguishing immunity of employees vs. entities.
City of L.A. v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) – U.S. Supreme Court case holding a municipality cannot be liable where officers commit no constitutional violation. Paintsville adopts that logic for state-law claims.
City of Florence v. Chipman, 38 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001) & progeny (Fryman, Ritchie, Gaither) – Define the “public duty/special relationship” doctrine; Paintsville limits its reach by holding it does not trump qualified immunity.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standard for use of force; forms the constitutional backdrop for determining “good faith.”

Legal Reasoning

Discretionary Function. Deciding when and how to apply force to effect an arrest requires instantaneous judgment; therefore it is a quintessential discretionary act (Smith v. Norton Hospitals).
Good-Faith Component. The Court treated “good faith” as met once the officers’ force conformed to constitutional, statutory (KRS 503.090; 431.025), and adopted policy (KLC Response to Resistance) standards. No evidence showed “evil motive, corrupt intent, or reckless indifference.” Expert affidavits premised on “best practices” or mere review of pleadings cannot create a genuine dispute.
Causation/Medical Evidence. The only competent medical proof was the state examiner, who found no lethal trauma. Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Freeman) relied solely on pleadings and was therefore discounted under Rule 56.
Derivative Entity Liability. Kentucky follows the Heller principle: if agents are immune, entities cannot be vicariously or secondarily liable (Ten Broeck Dupont v. Brooks; Morgan v. Bird).
“Special Relationship” Limitation. Even if custodial duty existed once Prater was handcuffed, the officers fulfilled that duty by monitoring, rolling him supine, and administering CPR/Narcan. “Special relationship” thus supplied no breach, and, in any event, cannot override qualified immunity.

Impact of the Decision

Paintsville’s reach extends beyond Johnson County:

Unified Framework. The case synthesizes immunity, public-duty, and vicarious-liability doctrines into a single analytical ladder colloquially dubbed in practice circles the “Paintsville Standard.”
Litigation Economics. Plaintiffs will face an earlier, stricter burden to bring concrete evidence of bad faith or unconstitutional force before discovery can be further compelled. Defendants will move for immunity as soon as fact-witness depositions conclude.
NHTRS Pleadings. Negligent hiring/retention counts against municipalities or sheriffs now survive only when the underlying tortfeasor is not immune or when an independent statutory waiver applies.
Special-Relationship Clarification. Kentucky courts must now treat the doctrine as addressing the duty element of negligence—not as an immunity exception.
Training and Policy Proof. “Best practices” evidence, without more, will rarely defeat qualified immunity; plaintiffs must tie policy deviations to clearly established law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Official Immunity – A shield for government employees performing discretionary tasks in good faith within their authority.
Governmental vs. Sovereign Immunity – Sovereign (state/county) is absolute unless waived; governmental (city/fire district) is broader than individual immunity but narrower than sovereign.
Vicarious Liability (Respondeat Superior) – Employer responsibility for employee torts; falls when employee is immune.
Special Relationship Doctrine – An exception to the general “no duty to protect” rule, triggered by custody or specific undertaking; creates negligence duty but does not nullify immunity.
Excited Delirium – A controversial forensic term for sudden in-custody death associated with agitation; Paintsville declines to rely on it, focusing instead on lack of lethal trauma and absence of causal proof.

Conclusion

City of Paintsville v. Haney re-anchors Kentucky immunity law after two decades of incremental drift. The opinion reiterates that qualified official immunity remains the first and often last barrier to liability when public employees make on-scene judgments, and that derivative claims against their agencies cannot bypass that barrier. It further delineates that the special-relationship doctrine is about duty, not about stripping immunity, and cautions litigants that speculation or aspirational “best practice” testimony will not forestall summary judgment. The decision furnishes law-enforcement agencies, municipal attorneys, and trial courts with a clear “Paintsville Standard” for future excessive-force and negligent-supervision litigation.