Cosby v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 23 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. A10A2094.,A10A2094. |
| Citation | 267 Ed. Law Rep. 369,308 Ga.App. 668,708 S.E.2d 585 |
| Parties | COSBY et al.v.LEWIS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Brock, Clay, Calhoun & Rogers, Randall C. Farmer, Marietta, for appellants.Adams, Jordan & Treadwell, Donald J. Jordan, Caroline W. Herrington, Macon, for appellees.DILLARD, Judge.
Richard Lewis and Priscilla Lewis, individually and as parents of Richard L. Lewis III, sued the Hancock County School District and several of its employees, including George Cosby and James Robbins, in both their official and individual capacities, claiming that defendants' negligence caused the death of the Lewises' son. Following a defense motion, most of the defendants were dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds. However, based on Cosby and Robbins's failure to file timely responsive pleadings, the trial court entered a default judgment against those two defendants in their individual capacities. Cosby and Robbins now appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the judgment was a nullity because the court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, arguing that the court erred by not opening the default judgment on the grounds of excusable neglect and proper case. For the reasons set forth infra, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The events underlying this appeal are unquestionably heart wrenching. In August 2006, Richard Lewis III, and a group of his fellow classmates from Hancock Central High School traveled to Atlanta to attend an ROTC competition. Cosby and Robbins, both of whom were employees of Hancock Central High School, accompanied the students as chaperones. Shortly after arriving at the group's hotel and assisting the students with checking into their rooms, Cosby, Robbins, and a few of the students allegedly left the hotel premises to get something to eat. And while Cosby and Robbins were away, Lewis and several other students decided to go swimming in the hotel's pool. Shortly after entering the swimming pool, Lewis appeared to be in great distress and began drowning. Lewis was quickly pulled from the swimming pool and emergency medical technicians were called immediately. Tragically, neither the EMTs nor the emergency-room physicians at the hospital where Lewis was transported were able to revive him.
Thereafter, Lewis's parents filed suit against the Hancock County School District and several of its employees but subsequently dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice. The Lewises then refiled their wrongful-death action against the same defendants, including Cosby and Robbins in both their official and individual capacities. And while the school district and the district superintendent filed timely answers to this complaint, Cosby and Robbins did not file their answers until well after the deadline for doing so, as a result of some confusion regarding whether they had been served.
All of the defendants, including Cosby and Robbins, thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the Lewises' claims were barred by the doctrines of sovereign immunity and official immunity. Upon considering this motion, the trial court entered an order dismissing the claims against Cosby and Robbins in their official capacities but granting a default judgment against them in their personal capacities based on their failure to file timely answers.
Two days after the entry of the default judgment, Cosby and Robbins filed a motion to set aside the judgment entered against them in their individual capacities. In that motion, Cosby and Robbins argued that (1) the Lewises' claims were barred by the doctrines of sovereign immunity and official immunity, (2) the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction due to deficient service of process, and (3) the trial court should open the default on the grounds of excusable neglect and/or proper case under OCGA § 9–11–55(b). Following a hearing on the matter, the Lewises filed a motion to dismiss the school district and several of its employees, which the trial court granted. And then, the trial court issued another order, ruling that Cosby and Robbins were entitled to immunity in their official capacities but were not entitled to immunity in their individual capacities because of their failure to file timely answers. In that same order, the court also found that service of process was not deficient and that Cosby and Robbins had not shown that the default should be opened pursuant to OCGA § 9–11–55(b). Cosby and Robbins then sought and successfully obtained a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, and we granted their application for interlocutory appeal. This appeal follows.
1. Cosby and Robbins (hereinafter “appellants”) contend that the trial court erred in failing to vacate the default judgment. Specifically, appellants argue that they are entitled to official immunity as employees of the school district, and therefore, the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to enter a default.
At the outset, we note that, absent an abuse of discretion, “we will not reverse a trial court's refusal to set aside a default judgment.” 1 Nevertheless, “(t)he standard of review for a question of law on appeal is de novo,” during which “we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review.” 2 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address the substance of appellants' argument.
In considering appellants' claim of entitlement to official immunity from this lawsuit, we begin by noting that our Supreme Court has held that “[t]he doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.” 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity derives from a 1991 amendment to the Georgia Constitution, which provides in relevant part:
Except as specifically provided by the General Assembly in a State Tort Claims Act, all officers and employees of the state or its departments and agencies may be subject to suit and may be liable for injuries and damages caused by the negligent performance of, or negligent failure to perform, their ministerial functions and may be liable for injuries and damages if they act with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functions.4
In expounding upon this doctrine, we have held that “qualified immunity mandates that a public employee is not immune from suit when he performs ministerial acts negligently or performs ministerial or discretionary acts with malice or an intent to injure; rather, he or she is immune from suit only for the negligent performance of discretionary acts.” 5 Importantly, our Supreme Court has similarly concluded that—consistent with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Mitchell v. Forsyth 6—qualified immunity “is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability,” 7 and as such, a trial court “must consider as a threshold issue whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in a lawsuit for damages.” 8 Moreover, it is undisputed that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and official immunity are applicable to county-wide school districts and the employees of those districts.9
Notwithstanding the foregoing law, the trial court entered a default judgment against appellants in their individual capacities, finding that they were not entitled to the “defense” of official immunity. In so holding, the trial court erred. As noted supra, official immunity is not a mere defense but rather an entitlement not to be sued that must be addressed as a threshold matter before a lawsuit may proceed.10 Indeed, the plain meaning of the 1991 amendment to the Georgia Constitution regarding official immunity clearly supports this conclusion by providing that 11 Furthermore, “merely naming a defendant individually in a complaint is not conclusive as to the capacity in which that defendant is sued.” 12 Instead, “the reason for the lawsuit is the determinative factor as to a defendant's capacity.” 13 And while appellants were sued in both their official and individual capacities, it is undisputed that the Lewises' wrongful-death suit arose from actions the appellants took in their official capacities as employees of the school.14 Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the entry of the default judgment barred the appellants from being able to assert that official immunity protected them from the Lewises' wrongful-death action.15
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying appellants' motion to set aside the default judgment and remand the case to the trial court for a threshold determination as to whether appellants' acts or omissions that allegedly led to Richard Lewis's death were ministerial or discretionary in nature. And while the Lewises argue on appeal that appellants' acts were indeed ministerial, we are unwilling to entertain this argument, given the complete lack of any evidence in the record on that particular issue. Additionally, even if such evidence were contained in the appellate record, the trial court is the more proper forum for any initial review of this evidence and analysis regarding this issue.
2. Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the default judgment based on the lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, appellants argue that there is no order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. State
...of judicial economy, enumeration dependent upon interrelated matters in light of remand for further proceedings); Cosby v. Lewis, 308 Ga.App. 668, 675(3), 708 S.E.2d 585 (2011) (declining to address other enumerations of error in light of remand for further proceedings). Cf. Dingler v. Stat......
-
Brooks v. Palmer
...... S.E.2d 725) (2020). . . [ 11 ] Cameron v. Lang , 274 Ga. 122, 123 (1) (549 S.E.2d 341) (2001); accord Cosby v. Lewis , 308 Ga.App. 668, 670 (1) (708 S.E.2d 585). (2011). . . [ 12 ] Ga. Const. Art. I, § II, Par. IX (d). ......
-
SiteOne Landscaping Supply, LLC v. Stewart
...omitted)).5 Principal Lien Servs. , 346 Ga. App. at 278, 814 S.E.2d 4 (punctuation omitted); accord Cosby v. Lewis , 308 Ga. App. 668, 670 (1), 708 S.E.2d 585 (2011).6 All references to Stewart's motion are to his amended motion to dismiss this appeal.7 Stewart alleges in his motion that th......
-
Perdue v. Barron
...... liability as the threshold issue in a suit against the. [employee] in his personal capacity"); see also. Cosby v. Lewis , 308 Ga.App. 668, 672 (1) (708 S.E.2d. 585) (2011) ("[O]fficial immunity . . . must be. addressed as a threshold matter before ......
-
Local Government Law - Ken E. Jarrard
...(2010). 180. Id. at 235, 701 S.E.2d at 860. 181. Id. at 235, 237, 701 S.E.2d at 860-62. 182. Id. at 238-39, 701 S.E.2d at 862-63. 183. 308 Ga. App. 668, 708 S.E.2d 585 (2011). The two school employees failed to file a timely answer and the trial court refused to open default. Id. at 669, 70......
-
Local Government
...actual intent to cause injury in the performance of [his] official functions. GA. CONST. art. I, § 2, para. 9(d).47. Cosby v. Lewis, 308 Ga. App. 668, 672, 708 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2011).48. Id. 49. 363 Ga. App. 519, 519, 870 S.E.2d 848, 849 (2022).50. Id. at 520, 870 S.E.2d at 850.51. Id. at 5......
-
Local Government
...at 678, 848 S.E.2d at 687.36. Id. at 678-79, 848 S.E.2d at 687. 37. Id. at 679, 848 S.E.2d at 687.38. Id.39. Id.40. See Cosby v. Lewis, 308 Ga. App. 668, 672, 708 S.E.2d 585, 588 (2011) ("[Official immunity is not a mere defense but rather an entitlement not to be sued that must be addresse......