Richardson v. City of St. Louis

Majority - Patricia L. Cohen

1) No, the City of St. Louis's operation of its Bureau of Emergency Medical Services is a governmental function, thus entitling it to sovereign immunity. Under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 537.600, public entities, including municipalities, enjoy sovereign immunity for governmental functions. Governmental functions are those performed for the common good of all, whereas proprietary functions are for the special benefit or profit of the municipality. Operating a fire department or other entity providing medical services, such as hospitals, are well-established governmental functions because they serve to safeguard and preserve public health. The Bureau of Emergency Medical Services is a subdivision of the fire department and provides public healthcare services, aligning with these governmental functions. The fact that a municipality charges a fee for its services is not determinative of whether it is performing a proprietary or governmental function, as the underlying nature of the activity as a public health and safety service remains governmental. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing an exception to sovereign immunity. 2) No, a city-employed EMT's alleged negligent medical treatment in an emergency situation was not clearly established as a discretionary act shielded by official immunity solely from the plaintiff's petition, making dismissal improper. Official immunity shields public officials for negligent discretionary acts but not ministerial acts, with discretionary acts requiring the exercise of reason and judgment. While previous Missouri courts held that government-employed physicians are generally not entitled to official immunity for negligent medical decisions, the court distinguished EMTs in emergency situations. EMTs are more comparable to police officers who must make split-second decisions with limited information under emergency circumstances, rather than physicians who often have more time for reflection. The policy behind official immunity is to protect public employees who must exercise judgment affecting public safety and welfare without concerns about possible personal liability, which could cause hesitation in critical moments. However, the petition's limited facts did not adequately reveal the circumstances surrounding Mr. Burrow's alleged failure, such as the scope of his duties or the extent to which professional expertise or judgment was required. Therefore, the defense of official immunity was not 'clearly established' on the face of the petition, and dismissal was inappropriate.