Grammens v. Dollar
| Decision Date | 05 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. S09G0510.,S09G0510. |
| Citation | 287 Ga. 618,697 S.E.2d 775 |
| Parties | GRAMMENSv.DOLLAR. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
287 Ga. 618
697 S.E.2d 775
GRAMMENS
v.
DOLLAR.
No. S09G0510.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
July 5, 2010.
Holland Schaefer Roddenbery Blitch, James D. Blitch IV, Atlanta, for appellees.
Womack, Gottlieb & Rodham, Ronald R. Womack, Steven M. Rodham, LaFayette, amici curiae.
BENHAM, Justice.
David Dollar suffered an eye injury during a science experiment performed in his eighth-grade science class taught by appellant Patricia Grammens. The experiment consisted of “launching” a two-liter plastic soda bottle by means of water and air pressure. The soda bottle, containing water, lifted off the launch pad when air was pumped into the bottle and the U-shaped pin holding the bottle in place was removed. The student was struck in the eye by the metal pin when the student removed the pin by pulling on the string attached to the pin in order to launch the bottle. Appellee John F. Dollar is David's father who, acting individually and on behalf of his son, filed suit against the teacher, the school principal, and the school superintendent, alleging his son's injury was the result of a purported violation of an eye-protection policy promulgated by the Forsyth County Board of Education. The policy requires people to wear
appropriate industrial-quality eye protection equipment at all times while participating in or observing vocational, industrial arts, chemical, physical, or any other
course of instruction involving any of the following:
1. Molten metal or other molten materials[;]
2. Milling, sawing, turning, shaping, cutting, grinding, or stamping on any solid materials[;]
3. Heat treatment, tempering or kiln-firing of any metal or other materials[;]
4. Gas or electric arc welding or other forms of welding process[;]
5. Repair or servicing of any vehicle[;]
6. Caustic or explosive materials[;]
7. Finishing materials and solvents[;]
8. Injurious radiation or other hazards.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the negligence claims complained of were discretionary acts for which all the defendants were protected from personal liability by official immunity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the superintendent and the principal, but reversed with regard to the teacher. The Court of Appeals determined that the teacher did not fall under the umbrella of official immunity because the eye-protection policy required a ministerial, not discretionary, act on the part of the teacher. Dollar v. Grammens, 294 Ga.App. 888(1), 670 S.E.2d 555 (2008). We granted the teacher's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals and asked the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the eye-protection policy imposed upon the teacher a ministerial duty to require those observing or participating in the bottle-rocket experiment to wear eye-protection equipment.
The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. [Cit.] Qualified immunity “protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D.T. v. Rockdale Cnty. Pub. Sch.
...arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty." Grammens v. Dollar , 287 Ga. 618, 697 S.E.2d 775, 777 (2010). "A discretionary act, however, calls for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails exam......
-
Keele v. Glynn Cnty.
...v. Collins, 217 Ga.App. 829, 459 S.E.2d 452, 454 (1995). A ministerial act is “simple, absolute, and definite.” Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 697 S.E.2d 775, 777–78 (2010). It must be executed “without any exercise of discretion.” Id. at 778. Actual malice denotes “express malice or mali......
-
Williams v. Fulton Cnty. Sch. Dist.
...negligently performed a ministerial act or performed a discretionary act with malice or an intent to injure.33 See Grammens v. Dollar , 287 Ga. 618, 697 S.E.2d 775, 777 (2010) ; Glass v. Gates , 311 Ga.App. 563, 716 S.E.2d 611, 621 (2011), cert. granted (Jan. 23, 2012), aff'd, 291 Ga. 350, ......
-
Speight v. Griggs, Civil Action No. 1:11–CV–03163–AT.
...negligently performed a ministerial act or performed a discretionary act with malice or an intent to injure. See Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 697 S.E.2d 775, 777 (2010) ; Glass v. Gates, 311 Ga.App. 563, 716 S.E.2d 611, 621 (2011), cert. granted (Jan. 23, 2012), aff'd, 291 Ga. 350, 729 ......
-
Local Government Law - Ken E. Jarrard
...contractu for the breach of any written contract. . . ." Id. at 412, 699 S.E.2d at 608; see also GA. CONST. art. I, § 2, para. 9(c). 172. 287 Ga. 618, 697 S.E.2d 775 (2010). 173. Id. at 618, 697 S.E.2d at 776. The experiment involved "launching" a two-liter plastic bottle by means of compre......
-
Torts
...(citing Roper v. Greenway, 294 Ga. 112, 114-15, 751 S.E.2d 351, 353 (2013)).5. Id. at 531, 824 S.E.2d at 304 (quoting Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618, 621, 697 S.E. 2d 775, 778 (2010)). 6. Id.7. O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 (2019).8. 348 Ga. App. 159, 819 S.E.2d 677 (2018).9. Id. at 159-60, 819 S.E.......