Legal Definitions - judgmental immunity

Judgmental immunity is a legal principle that protects certain individuals or entities, often professionals or government officials, from being held legally responsible for an honest mistake in judgment. This protection applies when they have acted in good faith, within the scope of their authority, and with reasonable care and skill, even if their decision ultimately leads to an undesirable outcome. It shields them from liability for a mere error in judgment, provided their actions were not negligent, reckless, or malicious.

Here are some examples illustrating judgmental immunity:

• Medical Decision: A highly experienced emergency room physician is faced with a patient presenting with ambiguous symptoms that could indicate one of two serious, but distinct, conditions. After conducting a thorough examination and reviewing all available test results, the physician makes a rapid, critical decision to treat for Condition A, believing it to be the more immediate threat based on their professional judgment. Unfortunately, it later turns out the patient actually had Condition B, and the delay in treating it led to a worse outcome.

  How this illustrates judgmental immunity: The physician would likely be protected by judgmental immunity. They exercised reasonable care and skill, made a difficult decision in good faith based on their professional judgment under pressure, and acted within accepted medical standards. The less-than-ideal outcome was a result of an honest error in judgment in a complex situation, not negligence or recklessness.

• Government Policy Decision: A municipal planning department, after extensive studies and public consultations, decides to approve the construction of a new public park in a specific area, anticipating it will revitalize the neighborhood and increase property values. While the park is built and enjoyed by many, it unexpectedly leads to increased traffic congestion in surrounding residential streets, causing frustration among some residents.

  How this illustrates judgmental immunity: The planning department's decision would likely be protected by judgmental immunity. They acted within their authority, used reasonable care by conducting studies and consultations, and made a good-faith judgment call to benefit the community. Even though an unforeseen negative consequence arose, the initial decision was a reasonable exercise of judgment, not a negligent or malicious act.

• Law Enforcement Action: During a tense standoff with an armed suspect, a police commander must decide whether to attempt negotiations for a longer period or to authorize a tactical entry. Based on the suspect's erratic behavior and intelligence suggesting immediate danger to hostages, the commander makes the difficult judgment call to authorize a tactical entry. While the entry successfully neutralizes the threat, one hostage sustains a minor injury during the operation.

  How this illustrates judgmental immunity: The commander's decision would likely be covered by judgmental immunity. They exercised professional judgment under extreme pressure, acted within their authority, and made a good-faith decision to protect lives based on the information available at the time. The unfortunate injury, while regrettable, does not automatically mean the commander's decision was negligent, but rather an error in judgment made in a high-stakes, rapidly evolving situation.