Which immunity applies to officials performing discretionary acts in tort cases?

The concept of qualified immunity is central to the protection of officials who are performing discretionary acts in the course of their duties. When officials, such as law enforcement officers or correctional staff, engage in actions that require judgment or decision-making—often in high-pressure situations—they are granted qualified immunity. This legal doctrine protects them from civil liability as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity serves two critical functions: it allows officials to perform their duties effectively without the constant fear of litigation, and it ensures that courts do not hinder their ability to make discretionary decisions necessary for their roles. This immunity only applies when the official's conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the information available at the time, thereby balancing the need for accountability with the necessity of allowing officials the discretion to make decisions.

In contrast, absolute immunity provides broader protection for certain officials performing specific functions, but it is more limited in scope. Quasi-judicial immunity typically pertains to judges and others who perform quasi-judicial activities, while personal liability refers to the accountability of an individual in their personal capacity, which does not provide the same protections as qualified immunity for discretionary acts.