Comments on: SCOWIS to Consider Scope of Ministerial Exception http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/11/scowis-to-consider-scope-of-ministerial-exception/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:08:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard M. Esenberg http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/11/scowis-to-consider-scope-of-ministerial-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-1358 Richard M. Esenberg Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:06:19 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=1915#comment-1358 Great catch. Two questions regarding the meaning of two different uses of the same term. Umansky, which was ably briefed and argued by two students in my Wisconsin Supreme Court class, focuses on the extent of the ministerial duties exception to sovreign immunity. OSHA regs required a railing on platforms above a certain height. A network camera person at Camp Randall was on a platform above that height without a railing and fell off. If I recall correctly, he died and his estate sued. One issue in the case is whether the duty to provide a railing was ministerial, i.e., an act not requiring the exercise of judgment or discretion. Great catch. Two questions regarding the meaning of two different uses of the same term. Umansky, which was ably briefed and argued by two students in my Wisconsin Supreme Court class, focuses on the extent of the ministerial duties exception to sovreign immunity. OSHA regs required a railing on platforms above a certain height. A network camera person at Camp Randall was on a platform above that height without a railing and fell off. If I recall correctly, he died and his estate sued. One issue in the case is whether the duty to provide a railing was ministerial, i.e., an act not requiring the exercise of judgment or discretion.

]]> By: Tom Kamenick http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/11/scowis-to-consider-scope-of-ministerial-exception/comment-page-1/#comment-1335 Tom Kamenick Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:42:52 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=1915#comment-1335 I thought this was going to be about the OTHER WISC ministerial exception case to be considered, Umansky v. ABC http://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=96 http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33182 Two completely unrelated ministerial exceptions, odd. I thought this was going to be about the OTHER WISC ministerial exception case to be considered, Umansky v. ABC

http://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=96
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33182

Two completely unrelated ministerial exceptions, odd.

]]>