Hoffman v. Department of Corrections, A95A1099
| Decision Date | 17 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A1099,A95A1099 |
| Citation | 460 S.E.2d 882,218 Ga.App. 363 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ford Law Firm, James L. Ford, Christopher G. Moorman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Daryl A. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Neal B. Childers, Assistant Attorney General, Savell & Williams, Elmer L. Nash, Smith & Associates, Kenneth A. David, Atlanta, for appellees.
This is an action, for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law, brought by a former inmate of the State Women's Prison at Hardwick, plaintiff Hoffman, who alleges that while an inmate she was exploited by guards for purposes of sexual gratification. The alleged incidents occurred prior to the effective date of the Georgia Tort Claims Act (OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq.). One of the defendants in the case is the Georgia Department of Corrections. The theories underlying the claims against the Department of Corrections are not limited to those based on respondeat superior but include allegations that this defendant was a joint-tortfeasor along with several of its employees including guards and officials at the Hardwick prison. The complaint alleges that the Department of Corrections knowingly permitted and condoned a pervasive practice of abuse, including sexual misconduct, directed towards female inmates, and that this policy facilitated the specific acts of abuse which plaintiff suffered. Additional defendants include a guard and a deputy warden from the prison, and a former commissioner of the Department of Corrections. Two of these additional defendants reside in Baldwin County.
The action was originally filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County but then transferred on defendants' motions challenging venue there, to the Superior Court of Baldwin County. Plaintiff Hoffman then requested and received permission to file this interlocutory appeal from the transfer order. Held:
Apparently there is no specific statute determining venue for an action against the Department of Corrections predicated upon an incident prior to the effective date (January 1, 1991) of the Georgia Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff maintains that the Department of Corrections resides in Fulton County so as to render the original venue proper under the Constitution of Georgia, Article VI, Section II, Paragraph IV, which provides venue in actions against joint-tortfeasors. A state agency may be sued as a joint-tortfeasor. Gault v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 208 Ga.App. 134, 137-8(4), 430 S.E.2d 63. The defendants maintain that the concept of residence is not applicable to a state agency.
Under the argument advanced by defendants, we would simply disregard the presence of the Department of Corrections in determining venue. While this proposal might produce a simple resolution in this appeal, the proposal would not fare as well under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crutchfield v. State
-
Ga. State Licensing Bd. For Residential And Gen. Contractors v. Allen
...maintain that as the Board is a State agency, it may be sued in any Georgia county. See OCGA § 50-13-2;6Hoffman v. Dept. of Corrections, 218 Ga.App. 363, 460 S.E.2d 882 (1995). But, pretermitting a finding of statewide venue, it is plain that venue of the present suit is proper in Muscogee ......
-
Campbell v. Department of Corrections
...certain civil actions in the county where the defendant resides. See Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI. Relying on Hoffman v. Dept. of Corrections, 218 Ga.App. 363, 460 S.E.2d 882 (1995), Campbell argues that DOC is a resident of Fulton County and venue over DOC is proper in Fulton County pursuant ......
-
Ga. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Dougherty Cnty.
...as location of the principal offices of the [defendants], is an appropriate venue.” (Citation omitted.) Hoffman v. Dept. of Corrections, 218 Ga.App. 363, 364, 460 S.E.2d 882 (1995).In its ruling on venue, the trial court relied, in part, on State Highway Dept. v. Parker, 75 Ga.App. 237, 43 ......