Pries v. McMillon

¶ 43. {concurring). I agree with the majority opinion that Raymond McMillon is not immune from liability. Although I go along with the majority's ministerial duty analysis, I write separately because I conclude that the known *65danger analysis upon which the Court of Appeals resolved this case provides a simpler, and to me, a more persuasive means of resolving this case.1

¶ 44. The known danger reasoning in our precedent establishes that where "the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act," a ministerial…