Was Bakke reckless?
The immunity under § 895.525 (4) is lost if the defendant was reckless – that is, acting in conscious disregard of an unreasonable and substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another. The court of appeals ruled that Bakke was not reckless, but Noffke argued that this was a question properly reserved for a jury.The supreme court ruled that the record contained no indication that Bakke’s errors were more than “a lack of skill, inadvertence or simple negligence.” School district liability Noffke argued that the school district should lose its immunity because its employee violated a ministerial duty imposed by law. A ministerial duty is one that is so highly routinized in the time, mode, and occasion for its performance that the actor has no discretion for variation. Specifically, Noffke contended that the official cheerleading rule book calls for a coach to provide a spotter and mats. Reading the regulation book, the court found that the purported “rules” are suggestive guidelines, le
