SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
*89¶1 This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's denial of summary judgment to the City of New Berlin and the New Berlin Parks and Recreation Department (together, "New Berlin").1
*716¶2 Eight-year-old Lily Engelhardt attended a field trip to Brookfield's Wiberg Aquatic Center organized and run by the New Berlin Parks and Recreation *90Department. Lily could not swim. Lily's mother told Stuart Bell, the "Playground Coordinator" in charge of the field trip, that Lily could not swim. She questioned whether Lily should go on the trip at all. Bell responded that Lily would be safe because her swimming ability would be evaluated at the shallow end or zero depth area of the pool. Tragically, Lily drowned while staff and other children were changing in the locker rooms and proceeding to the pool deck.
¶3 Lily's parents filed suit against New Berlin and several other defendants, alleging negligence. New Berlin moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from suit pursuant to the governmental immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4) (2011-12).2 The circuit court denied New Berlin's summary judgment motion, and New Berlin moved for leave to appeal. The court of appeals granted New Berlin's motion and reversed the circuit court's denial of summary judgment to New Berlin.
¶4 We conclude that New Berlin is not entitled to the defense of governmental immunity. The known danger exception to governmental immunity applies in the instant case.
¶5 The known danger exception to governmental immunity, set forth in Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis. 2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977), applies when an obviously hazardous situation known to the public officer or employee is of such force that a ministerial duty to correct the situation is created.3 "[A] dangerous situation will be held to give rise to a ministerial duty *91only when 'there exists a known present danger of such force that the time, mode and occasion for performance is evident with such certainty that nothing remains for the exercise of judgment and discretion.' "4
¶6 In the instant case, the danger to which Lily was exposed at the Aquatic Center as an eight-year-old non-swimmer was compelling and self-evident. The obvious dangers involved here resemble other obviously hazardous circumstances presented in Wisconsin cases that applied the known danger exception.5 Drowning was a *717known danger. Under the circumstances present here, Bell and other camp staff had a ministerial duty to give Lily a swim test before allowing her near the pool. They did not perform this ministerial duty. *92¶7 Because New Berlin is not entitled to the defense of governmental immunity, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
¶8 The instant case reaches this court on summary judgment. We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the Engelhardts, the parties opposing summary judgment, and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in their favor.6
¶9 On Monday, July 2, 2012, eight-year-old Lily Engelhardt started her first day at a summer day camp organized and run by the New Berlin Parks and Recreation Department. On her second day of camp, the camp was scheduled to take a field trip to Brookfield's Wiberg Aquatic Center.
¶10 Lily could not swim. Despite having taken three sessions of beginner swimming lessons through the New Berlin Parks and Recreation Department, Lily had not moved on to the next level and was otherwise not making much progress. Other than these three sessions of swimming lessons, Lily had very little experience with swimming or being in or around pools.
¶11 The field trip to the Aquatic Center was optional. When Lily's mother received a permission slip upon picking Lily up after her first day, she questioned whether Lily should go on the field trip given that Lily could not swim.
*93¶12 Lily's mother communicated her concerns to Stuart Bell, the "Playground Coordinator" in charge of the day camp program. She told Bell that Lily could not swim and asked whether Lily should go on the field trip to the Aquatic Center. Bell responded that it would be all right for Lily to attend the field trip because Lily would be restricted to the splash pad area of the Aquatic Center.
¶13 In his deposition, Bell testified that New Berlin gave swim tests to all new campers in order to test their swimming ability. In fact, when Lily's mother told Bell that her daughter could not swim, Bell told her that Lily would be safe because her swimming ability would be evaluated at the pool. However, Lily was not given a swim test, and Bell told no other staff members that Lily could not swim.
¶14 The Aquatic Center was very busy the day of the field trip. Upon arriving at the Aquatic Center, 77 campers were divided by gender and went into the locker rooms to change. Although new campers who had not been given a swim test were instructed to find a leader before getting into the pool, they were not directed to go to any specific location to find a leader, and no leaders were stationed at the locker room door to direct them.
¶15 At some point when most of the children were in the water but before all staff members were out of the locker room, lifeguards had already discovered a distressed Lily in the pool. Despite the efforts of lifeguards and other medical personnel, Lily died as a result of this incident.
*718¶16 Lily's parents sued New Berlin and several other defendants, alleging negligence. New Berlin moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from suit pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4). The circuit court determined that an issue of fact *94precluded New Berlin's immunity as a matter of law. New Berlin moved for leave to appeal. The motion was granted by the court of appeals.
¶17 The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding that New Berlin was immune from suit under Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4)7 and was entitled to summary judgment.
¶18 The court of appeals reasoned that none of the camp documents highlighted by the Engelhardts (specifically, the camp's information packet, staff guidelines, and staff handbook) created ministerial duties and that the known danger exception to governmental immunity did not apply.
II
¶19 The issue presented is whether New Berlin is entitled to governmental immunity or whether an exception to governmental immunity applies. "Whether an exception to immunity applies requires us to determine the proper scope of the common law doctrine of governmental immunity; that is a question of law that we review de novo without deference to the circuit court or court of appeals, but benefitting from the analysis of each court."8
*95III
A
¶20 We begin our analysis with the text of Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4), the governmental immunity statute.9
¶21 In relevant part, Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4) immunizes municipalities from liability arising out of "acts done in the exercise of legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions."
¶22 For over 40 years, this court has consistently interpreted this particular statutory language to include any acts that involve the exercise of discretion.10 Immunizing government officials from liability arising out of their discretionary acts "is based largely upon public policy considerations that spring from the interest in protecting the public purse and a preference for political rather than judicial redress for the actions of public officers."11 We highlighted these important policy considerations *719in Lister v. Board of Regents, 72 Wis. 2d 282, 299, 240 N.W.2d 610 (1976), as follows:
(1) The danger of influencing public officers in the performance of their functions by the threat of lawsuit; (2) the deterrent effect which the threat of personal liability might have on those who are considering entering public service; (3) the drain on valuable time caused by such actions; (4) the unfairness of subjecting *96officials to personal liability for the acts of their subordinates; and (5) the feeling that the ballot and removal procedures are more appropriate methods of dealing with misconduct in public office.12
¶23 Despite decades of legislative silence with regard to this court's long-standing interpretation of the governmental immunity statute, the Engelhardts invite this court to reverse course on the past 40 years of Wisconsin jurisprudence interpreting the governmental immunity statute.13 They urge the court to adopt an interpretation of the statute that would have the effect of exposing municipalities to liability in a far greater number of circumstances.
¶24 We decline the Engelhardts' invitation. Decades of jurisprudence cannot, and should not, be discarded casually. " 'This court follows the doctrine of stare decisis scrupulously because of our abiding respect for the rule of law.' "14 The doctrine of stare decisis is vital to "the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles[.]"15 It "fosters *97reliance on judicial decisions[ ] and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process."16
¶25 The doctrine of stare decisis is a particularly important concern "where a court has authoritatively interpreted a statute[.]"17 This is because "the legislature remains free to alter its construction" if it believes we interpreted the statute incorrectly or in a way that results in unintended or undesirable consequences.18
¶26 The legislature has not overturned our interpretation of the statute. Although it is not conclusive of legislative intent, we note that the legislature has on numerous occasions revised and recreated Wis. Stat. § 893.80 without altering the statutory language in response to this court's interpretation of the statute.19 Indeed, the legislature *720repealed and recreated the governmental immunity statute in 1977,20 but it did not see fit to "correct" the court's understanding of governmental immunity for discretionary acts as discussed in Lister, a case decided just one year earlier.21
¶27 If we adopt the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4) urged by the Engelhardts, we would effectively *98pull the rug out from under municipalities and other governmental entities that have managed their affairs relying upon our decades-old interpretation of the governmental immunity statute. Such a result would be especially jarring to the public and legal community given that just two years ago, we rejected the specific interpretation of the statute that the Engelhardts urge us to adopt today.22
¶28 It is unwise for a court to frequently call into question existing and long-standing law. Doing so gives the impression that the decision to overturn prior cases is "undertaken merely because the composition of the court has changed."23 "When existing law is open to revision in every case, deciding cases becomes a mere exercise of judicial will, with arbitrary and unpredictable results."24
B
¶29 Wisconsin Stat. § 893.80(4) provides no immunity against liability associated with several categories of acts:
There is no immunity against liability associated with: 1) the performance of ministerial duties imposed *99by law; 2) known and compelling dangers that give rise to ministerial duties on the part of public officers or employees; 3) acts involving medical discretion; and 4) acts that are malicious, willful and intentional.25
¶30 These exceptions "represent[ ] a judicial balance struck between 'the need of public officers to perform their functions freely [and] the right of an aggrieved party to seek redress.' "26
¶31 In the instant case, the Engelhardts invoke the "ministerial duty" and "known danger" exceptions to governmental immunity. These two exceptions are related-they "overlap to an extent, inasmuch as they both require the identification of a ministerial duty."27 Thus, a brief discussion of ministerial duties is relevant to the application of both exceptions.
¶32 In Wisconsin, the test for determining whether a duty is ministerial or discretionary was articulated in *721Meyer v. Carman, 271 Wis. 329, 332, 73 N.W.2d 514 (1955). We have described the test for ministerial duties as follows:
A public officer's duty is ministerial only when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion.28
*100¶33 We have explained that "circumstances may give rise to such a certain duty, 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."29
¶34 If either the "ministerial duty" exception or the "known danger" exception applies, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).
IV
¶35 Having established the proper legal framework, we now apply that framework to the facts of the case. We conclude that the known danger exception applies, and therefore, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity.
¶36 The known danger exception was first established by this court in Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis. 2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977). The Cords case involved an accident where hikers, legally accessing a park hiking trail at night, fell into a deep gorge located on a *101part of the trail known by the park manager to be particularly hazardous at night.30
¶37 The issue was whether the park manager was entitled to immunity from the hikers' negligence suit.
¶38 We concluded that the park manager "had an absolute, certain, or imperative duty to either place the signs warning the public of the dangerous conditions existing on the upper trail or to advise his superiors" of the hazardous conditions.31
¶39 We explained: "[The park manager] knew the terrain at the glen was dangerous particularly at night; he was in a position as park manager to do something about it; he failed to do anything about it. He is liable for the breach of this duty."32 Based on the facts presented in Cords, the *722court held "that the duty to either place warning signs or advise superiors of the conditions is ... a duty so clear and so absolute that it falls within the definition of a ministerial duty."33
¶40 The court of appeals applied the known danger exception in Voss ex rel. Harrison v. Elkhorn Area School District, 2006 WI App 234, 297 Wis. 2d 389, 724 N.W.2d 420. In Voss, a teacher was instructing the class regarding the dangers of driving after having *102consumed alcohol.34 The teacher had the students wear "fatal vision goggles" which, when worn, replicated a .10 blood alcohol concentration.35 The teacher arranged the desks in the classroom into three straight rows and instructed three students wearing goggles to walk in between the rows and go after a tennis ball thrown by the teacher.36 "[T]he purpose of this particular exercise was to divert the student's attention away from an otherwise simple task (walking down an aisle of desks) and then show how the addition of another simple task (going after a ball) makes the performance of both tasks difficult when a person is under the influence of alcohol."37
¶41 The teacher was aware of the risks inherent in the exercise. Although the potential for danger was obvious, the teacher had also witnessed first-hand a student who bumped into a desk and hit her knees against the floor while performing this exercise.38 The incident giving rise to the lawsuit in Voss occurred when a student caught her foot on the leg of a desk, tripped, and hit her mouth on the top of the desk, causing severe injuries to her teeth.39
¶42 The student's parents sued the school district claiming negligence, and the school district argued that it was entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).40
*103¶43 The court of appeals determined that the school district was not entitled to governmental immunity because the known danger exception applied to the facts of the case.41
¶44 The court of appeals stated that, like the facts presented in Cords, the facts presented in Voss represented an "example[ ] of conditions that are nearly certain to cause injury if not corrected, or in other words, are 'accidents waiting to happen.' "42 The court of appeals explained:
The teacher knew of the perils of conducting the exercise. The fatal vision goggles distort vision and impair depth perception and sense of balance. The teacher testified that students using the goggles would lose their balance and slip or stumble while doing the simple tasks he had them perform. In fact, that was the entire purpose of the exercise-to show students how difficult a simple task becomes when alcohol is consumed. The teacher, however, chose to conduct the exercise within the confines of a classroom with a hard tile floor and in between aisles of desks made of steel or aluminum and wood. Despite these obvious *723hazards, the teacher took no precautions to minimize the risk of injury.
....
[T]he circumstances presented on the day of Voss' injury admitted of only one response on behalf of the teacher-stop the activity the way it was presently conceived. Before Voss tripped and fell, some of the male students had collided with each other and slid on the floor and one other student had stumbled and fallen to her knees. At that point, given the physical *104layout of the room and the desks made of steel or aluminum and wood, the manner in which the students were stumbling and falling and the very nature of the effects of the goggles themselves, it should have been self-evident to the teacher that the activity was hazardous and the only option was to put an end to it. Accordingly, the known and present danger exception to immunity applies.43
¶45 Though not decided on the basis of the known danger exception, Pries v. McMillon, 2010 WI 63, 326 Wis. 2d 37, 784 N.W.2d 648, is also instructive.
¶46 In Pries, a group of workers were disassembling a steel horse stall at the state fair.44 The stalls were made up of four steel pieces: a front, back, and two sides.45 Each piece measured approximately 10 feet high, 10 feet wide, and four inches thick, and weighed approximately 200 pounds.46 When assembled, the pieces were secured to each other with pins, and the side and back pieces were secured to a wall with chains.47
¶47 At the time of the accident giving rise to the lawsuit, a two-page written procedure was in effect setting forth the proper method of disassembling horse stalls. The supervisor who was in charge of the workers was aware of the written instructions and that they stated, in relevant part: "Always have someone holding up the piece that you are taking down."48 The supervisor also knew that if the stalls were not disassembled in an appropriate manner, they posed a risk of *105injury.49 "[The supervisor] confirmed that he knew that if the chains had been removed from the back stall pieces, the stalls could fall and injure people standing nearby, particularly if someone jumped up on the stalls."50
¶48 At one point while disassembling a stall, the plaintiff and two other workers struggled to dislodge a stall piece that was stuck to another piece.51 The supervisor, a full-time employee of the Wisconsin State Fair Park, observed that the chains responsible for securing the pieces had been removed and commented that they should not have been.52 Despite that, the supervisor jumped up on and straddled the stall next to the piece that the workers were trying to free and started jerking it up and down with his hands.53 Immediately after, there was a devastating accident in which unchained stall pieces started falling in a domino effect on the workers, striking all *724three of them.54
¶49 The plaintiff sued the supervisor and State Fair Park claiming negligence, and the supervisor argued that he was entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).55
¶50 The Pries court held that the ministerial duty exception to governmental immunity applied because the written instructions "establish[ed] a ministerial duty that [the supervisor] then violated when he jumped on and shook the stuck stall knowing that 'the *106chains were undone' and knowing of the instructions to '[a]lways have someone holding up the piece that you are taking down.' "56
¶51 Although the parties in Pries briefed the application of the known danger exception, the Pries court concluded that "[b]ecause ... the ministerial duty exception applies here, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the known danger exception also applies."57
¶52 Writing separately, one justice analyzed the known danger exception and concluded that it applied to the facts of the case:
The pieces of solid steel horse stalls weigh[ed] 200 pounds, [were] typically handled by no less than four workers, and need[ed] to be constantly supported during disassembly. Disassembly here [was] an "accident waiting to happen" and gives rise to an absolute duty to take steps to prevent the steel horse stall pieces from falling. [The supervisor] knew the unchained steel stall pieces were dangerous; he was in a position as supervisor to do something about the danger; and he failed to do anything about it-worse, he jumped onto the stalls. In my view, he thereby breached a duty that was "absolute, certain, and imperative" following the analysis of the known danger cases.58
¶53 Our review of Cords, Voss, and Pries leads us to the conclusion that the known danger exception applies in the instant case, and as a consequence, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).
*107¶54 As the facts somberly illustrate, the danger associated with bringing a young child who cannot swim to a busy water park along with 76 other children is apparent. A young child can quickly become distressed in deep water if he or she cannot swim. Serious injury or death can occur very suddenly, so it is paramount that precautions be taken to lessen those risks. The nature of the danger here was immediate, compelling, and self-evident. The danger was like hiking a trail with a treacherous cutback along a steep gorge at night, attempting to go after a tennis ball in a classroom full of desks while wearing goggles that simulate a .10 BAC, and jumping on an unchained 200-pound solid steel piece of a horse stall. The danger was "of such force" that Bell had no discretion not to act-the circumstances of the situation imposed upon him a ministerial duty to test Lily's swimming ability before she got into the water.59
¶55 Bell was aware that Lily could not swim. Lily's mother told him that Lily could not swim before the field trip to the Aquatic Center, but Bell did nothing with this information. He did not tell any other *725staff member that Lily could not swim. He did nothing to ensure that Lily's swimming ability would be tested before allowing her to be without direct supervision. In short, Bell was aware of the danger, he was in a position as the Playground Coordinator to do something about it, and he failed to do anything about it.60
¶56 The parties spend a great deal of effort questioning whether Bell and other camp staff had a ministerial duty to directly supervise Lily and keep an eye on her at all times before administering a swim test.
*108¶57 Properly framed, the issue in the instant case is whether the circumstances of the situation created a ministerial duty to test Lily's swimming ability before she got into the pool. We conclude that they did. The Engelhardts' theory of liability is that New Berlin's procedure for making sure that new campers like Lily did not get into the water without first having a swim test was ineffective and constitutes negligence. New Berlin negligently performed (or, as a result of its negligence, did not perform) its ministerial duty to administer a swim test before Lily got into the water, and governmental immunity is not available "for the negligent performance of a purely ministerial duty."61
¶58 Before ending, we note that there might have been a number of ways in which New Berlin could have discharged its ministerial duty to test Lily's swimming ability before she got in the water. For example, new campers who had not yet taken a swim test, including Lily, could have been grouped together by gender and assigned a specific counselor to supervise them until a swim test was performed. Alternatively, camp staff could have been stationed at the exit of each locker room to fit each new camper who had not yet taken a swim test, including Lily, with a life jacket.
¶59 In Cords, we specifically enumerated two different ways in which the park manager could have fulfilled the ministerial duty arising out of the circumstances of that particular case.62 That there were at *109least two possible ways for the park manager to fulfill his ministerial duty did not affect the resolution of the case. "[S]imply allowing for the exercise of discretion does not suffice to bring the actions under the blanket of immunity provided by sec. 893.80(4), Stats., when the facts or the allegations reveal a duty so clear and absolute that it falls within the concept of a ministerial duty."63
¶60 Similarly, that there may have been several possible ways in which New Berlin could have fulfilled its ministerial duty does not affect the resolution of the instant case. Rather, it is sufficient for us to conclude that a ministerial duty was created by the obviously hazardous circumstances presented in the instant case, and as a result, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity from the Engelhardts' negligence suit.
¶61 Accordingly, we conclude that the known danger exception applies.
*726¶62 Because we conclude that the known danger exception to governmental immunity applies, we need not and do not address whether any of the written documents highlighted by the Engelhardts created a ministerial duty for purposes of the ministerial duty exception.
V
¶63 We conclude that the known danger exception applies in the instant case, and as a result, New Berlin is not entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).
*110¶64 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
By the Court. -The decision of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause remanded.