Qualified Official Immunity Over Special-Relationship Duties:
The Kentucky Supreme Court’s Comprehensive Immunity Road-Map in Haney v. City of Paintsville (2025)

1. Introduction

On 14 August 2025 the Supreme Court of Kentucky delivered an expansive, precedential opinion in Paula M. Haney, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Prater, Jr. v. City of Paintsville. The case arose from the death of Donald Prater, who—half-nude, hallucinating and reportedly under the influence of narcotics—resisted arrest and died minutes after being handcuffed. His estate sued a city, a county sheriff’s department, several police officers, a fire chief/EMS director, and their respective agencies on theories ranging from excessive force and battery to negligent hiring and supervision.

The litigation travelled from the Johnson Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals and finally to the Commonwealth’s highest court. In its ultimate judgment the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s complete dismissal, reversed the Court of Appeals’ partial reinstatement of claims, and—most importantly—clarified six interlocking immunity doctrines:

1. How qualified official immunity for individual responders operates as a threshold bar.
2. The relationship between discretionary/ministerial acts and “good-faith” analysis.
3. Why an employer-entity cannot be vicariously liable when its employees are immune.
4. The collapse of negligent hiring / training theories in the absence of an underlying tort.
5. Limited reach of the “special relationship” exception to the public-duty doctrine.
6. The timing of summary judgment vis-à-vis outstanding discovery in immunity cases.

The opinion therefore supplies a blueprint for courts, lawyers and public-sector risk managers when confronting in-custody death litigation in Kentucky.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Trial Court Disposition

• Four separate orders granted dismissal or summary judgment to all defendants.
• Key holdings: Responders enjoyed qualified official immunity; city immune under CALGA; fire department protected by governmental immunity; sheriff’s department cloaked with sovereign immunity; no underlying tort to sustain negligent-hiring claims.

Court of Appeals

• Affirmed immunity for the fire chief & department.
• Reversed dismissals against the city and police department (finding CALGA inapplicable to negligent-hiring claims).
• Reversed qualified-immunity ruling as “premature” because the trial court had not addressed whether a special relationship created an additional duty of care.

Supreme Court of Kentucky

• Affirmed immunity-based dismissals.
• Reversed Court of Appeals in reinstating the city & police department claims.
• Clarified that the existence (or non-existence) of a special relationship is irrelevant once officials are immunised under the qualified-immunity rubric.
• Held that no factual disputes precluded summary judgment, and pending discovery was immaterial.
• Remanded only for entry of any ministerial orders; no claims survive.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

Federal Excessive-Force Doctrine

• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – objective-reasonableness standard.
• District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – probable-cause threshold.
• City of L.A. v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986) – no municipal liability absent officer liability.
• Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) – arrest permissible for even minor misdemeanors.

Kentucky Immunity and Public-Duty Cases

• Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) – foundational qualified-official-immunity test.
• Rowan Cty. v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469 (Ky. 2006) – de novo review & “legally uncertain environment.”
• Breathitt Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 (Ky. 2009) – interlocutory appeals in immunity context.
• City of Florence v. Chipman, 38 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001) – special-relationship exception.
• Gaither v. Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, 447 S.W.3d 628 (Ky. 2014) – extension of special-relationship to confidential informants.
• Ten Broeck Dupont v. Brooks, 283 S.W.3d 705 (Ky. 2009) – no negligent-hiring liability without employee tort.
• Caneyville Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Green’s Motorcycle Salvage, 286 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2009) – immunity for fire officials.

Statutory Anchors

• KRS 503.090 – use of physical force by peace officers.
• KRS 431.015 & 431.025 – warrantless arrests and use of force.
• KRS 65.200–65.2006 – Claims Against Local Government Act (CALGA).
• KRS 75.070 – fire department statutory duties.

The court meticulously wove these authorities into a cohesive immunity tapestry, emphasising Yanero’s three-prong test (discretionary act, within authority, good faith) as the fulcrum.

3.2 The Court’s Core Reasoning

a) Discretionary vs. Ministerial Conduct

Arrest tactics—including the choice, sequencing, and intensity of force options—are “quintessential discretionary acts.” Prater’s half-nude flight, active aggression, and repeated non-compliance required split-second judgment. Hence step-one of Yanero was satisfied for each officer and for Fire Chief Ratliff who decided to assist.

b) Good-Faith Requirement

Good faith was established by undisputed evidence that officers escalated force only after lesser measures failed (verbal commands → taser display → pepper spray → baton strike → takedown → drive-stuns → handcuffing). No witness or forensic finding suggested gratuitous violence or sadistic motive. The medical examiner found “no lethal trauma.” The estate’s expert affidavit, based solely on pleadings, was held insufficient to generate a genuine dispute.

c) Special Relationship – A Red Herring

Even assuming custodial status created a duty of ordinary care, such duty does not dissolve qualified immunity when the conduct at issue is discretionary and in good faith. The Court of Appeals therefore erred by insisting on an additional “special-relationship” finding before applying immunity.

d) Entity Liability Collapses

Once individual immunity is secure, vicarious liability theories fall (Heller). Moreover, negligent-hiring / retention claims require an underlying tortious act (Ten Broeck), which was absent here. CALGA analysis became academic—the city and police department could not be liable even without statutory immunity.

e) Discovery and Timing

Kentucky courts must resolve immunity “at the earliest possible stage” (citing SCOTUS, Hunter v. Bryant). Haney had one year, conducted all fact-witness depositions, and relied only on speculation regarding un-deposed witnesses. Summary judgment was thus timely and proper.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Clear Hierarchy: Trial courts are instructed to decide qualified-immunity motions before embarking on duty analyses such as “special relationship.”
• Discovery Limits: Plaintiffs must marshal concrete evidence early; speculative “might-have-beens” will not forestall dismissal.
• Entity-Liability Barrier Strengthened: Municipalities cannot be secondarily liable when staff are shielded, and CALGA debates may be sidestepped.
• Fire/EMS Exposure Reduced: By confirming that EMS participation in arrest assistance is discretionary, the court narrows a plaintiff’s avenue to sue medical first-responders at scenes.
• Lethal-Outcome ≠ Excessive Force: The holding reinforces that an in-custody death alone does not prove constitutional or tort violation; causation and excessiveness remain separate, evidence-dependent questions.

Collectively, these effects will likely accelerate dismissal of Kentucky cases where plaintiffs rely principally on tragic outcome rather than tangible evidence of malfeasance.

4. Simplifying the Complexities

Qualified Official Immunity

Think of it as a three-way shield: (1) The act involves judgment/choice, (2) the official had authority to act, and (3) she acted honestly, not maliciously. If the shield is intact, the suit stops there.

Discretionary vs. Ministerial

A ministerial act is a checklist task (“renew this driver’s licence”). A discretionary act is a judgment call (“how much force to use to subdue a suspect”). Immunity only attaches to the latter.

Special Relationship Doctrine

Normally the government owes no specific duty to protect individuals from third parties. Exceptions arise when it takes custody of someone (prisoners, students under compulsory attendance, informants). Here, even with custody, officers still keep their immunity for discretionary acts.

Negligent Hiring / Supervision

You can sue an employer for hiring a bad apple—but only if the apple actually bruised you. No employee tort, no claim.

CALGA

Kentucky’s Claims Against Local Government Act protects cities from suits over “core governmental” activities. The Supreme Court bypassed CALGA analysis by holding there was no underlying liability.

5. Conclusion

Haney v. City of Paintsville does much more than resolve a single wrongful-death lawsuit—it delivers a doctrinal roadmap that prioritises qualified official immunity and clarifies its dominance over “special-relationship” duties and derivative municipal liability. By insisting on evidence, not conjecture, to defeat early dismissal, the court strengthens procedural efficiency while preserving redress for genuinely unlawful conduct. Kentucky practitioners should treat this opinion as the primary citation when litigating use-of-force deaths, negligent-hiring allegations, or disputes over the timing of immunity motions.

Ultimately, the case reminds us that tragedy does not equal tort, and that in the Commonwealth discretionary public servants remain insulated from liability when they act within constitutional and statutory bounds—even when the outcome is fatal.