Henderman v. WATER & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Decision Date | 17 May 1999 |
Docket Number | No. S99A0407.,S99A0407. |
Citation | 271 Ga. 192,515 S.E.2d 617 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | HENDERMAN et al. v. WALTON COUNTY WATER & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Cheryl Regina Benton Reid, Thomas O. Marshall, Holland & Knight, LLP, Atlanta, for Henderman et al.
Thomas Monroe Mitchell, Richard A. Carothers, Carothers & Mitchell, LLC, Buford, Allan R. Roffman, Lambert & Roffman, Madison, Christina A. Craddock, William S. Allred, Bovis, Kyle & Burch, Atlanta, for Walton County Water and Sewerage Authority et al.
David Henderman and Glenda Henderman brought suit against the Walton County Water and Sewerage Authority, its manager Wendell Geiger, and Hightower Consulting Engineers alleging that the defendants negligently designed, inspected, and maintained the water lines into the Hendermans' home and that the Hendermans suffered personal and property damage from bacteria-laden water. The Hendermans appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Authority and Geiger on the grounds of sovereign immunity and to Hightower on the basis that the Hendermans failed to establish that Hightower committed any negligent act. Because the legislature did not exceed its authority in granting sovereign immunity to the Authority and because the record shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to the claims against Hightower, we affirm.
1. The legislation creating the Authority provides that it is "deemed to be a political subdivision of the State of Georgia" and that it "shall have the same immunity and exemption from liability for torts and negligence as Walton County."1 The creation of a political subdivision of the state and the extension of immunity to that subdivision is within the authority of the legislature.2 Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Authority on the basis of sovereign immunity.
2. The Hendermans sued Geiger in his individual capacity, alleging that he refused to flush the water lines in the subdivision following the Hendermans' request. The Hendermans contend that the decision to flush the lines was a ministerial act and therefore Geiger may be held liable if he acted negligently.3 Geiger contends that the decision to flush the lines is discretionary and therefore he is entitled to immunity unless he acted with malice or an intent to injure.4 Generally, a discretionary act is one that requires the examination of facts and the exercise of considered judgment before deciding on a course of action,5 whereas a ministerial act is one that is a mandatory fixed obligation for which mandamus will lie to compel performance.6 Whether an act is discretionary or ministerial depends on the facts of the case.7
There is no evidence in the record regarding any policy of the Authority that required flushing of lines when a customer complained. Rather, the evidence showed that the Authority left the decision on when to flush the lines to the judgment of the manager. Therefore, the decision to flush the lines is a discretionary act. Because the Hendermans presented no evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether Geiger acted with malice or an actual intent to injure, the trial court properly granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnett v. Caldwell
...even considering statutory mandate that school officials "shall" create a school safety plan); Henderman v. Walton Cty. Water & Sewerage Auth ., 271 Ga. 192, 193, 515 S.E.2d 617 (1999) (water authority manager failed to flush water lines after complaint by a customer). These holdings make s......
-
McDowell v. Smith
...a discretionary duty because it called for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment); Henderman v. Walton County Water & Sewerage Auth., 271 Ga. 192, 193(2), 515 S.E.2d 617 (1999) (refusal to flush water lines after complaint by a customer was a discretionary act where no policy r......
-
Murray v. Georgia Dept. of Transp.
...punctuation omitted.) Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480, 482, 614 S.E.2d 761 (2005) Henderman v. Walton County Water & Sewerage Auth., 271 Ga. 192, 193, 515 S.E.2d 617 (1999). To prove that an employee's act was ministerial because a mandamus could have been successfully soug......
-
Youngblood v. GWINNETT ROCKDALE NEWTON
...to extend to a political subdivision of this state "the same immunity" as a particular county. Henderman v. Walton County Water & Sewerage Authority, 271 Ga. 192, 193(1), 515 S.E.2d 617 (1999). See also Athens-Clarke County v. Torres, 246 Ga.App. 215, 217(2), 540 S.E.2d 225 (2000). Henderma......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell Jr.
...students are considered discretionary acts," and the shop instructor was protected by official immunity. Id., 521 S.E.2d at 80. 302. 271 Ga. 192, 515 S.E.2d 617 (1999). 303. Id. at 193, 515 S.E.2d at 618. Plaintiffs complained of "personal and property damage from bacteria-laden water." Id.......
-
Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board: the Sovereign Immunity of State Agencies Under the Georgia Constitution and the Georgia Tort Claims Act - Jamie P. Woodard
...authority was a department or agency of the state entitled to sovereign immunity); Henderman v. Walton County Water & Sewerage Auth., 271 Ga. 192, 193, 515 S.E.2d 617, 618 (1999) (upholding a statutory grant of the same immunity as Walton County to its water authority). See discussion infra......