Phillips v. Walls
Decision Date | 10 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. A99A1969., No. A99A1968 |
Citation | 242 Ga. App. 309,529 S.E.2d 626 |
Parties | PHILLIPS et al. v. WALLS et al. McKeehan et al. v. Walls et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Russell & Mingledorff, Currie M. Mingledorff II, Winder, Christopher T. Adams, Lawrenceville, for appellants (case no. A99A1968).
Winship E. Rees, Lawrenceville, for appellants (case no. A99A1969).
Terry E. Williams, Atlanta, for appellees.
These actions arose from a car wreck in which two children died. The wreck occurred when a truck driver ran the stop sign at an intersection of county and state roads, crashing into a van in which the two children were riding. The parents of the deceased children sued and then settled with the truck driver, truck owner, van driver, van owner, and the Georgia Department of Transportation. The parents also sued the four Barrow County employees who are parties to this appeal and the truck driver's employers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the truck driver's employers, leaving only the four Barrow County employees as defendants. The truck driver's employers are not parties to this appeal. The appellants in these companion cases appeal the grant of summary judgment to the defendant county employees. We affirm on the grounds that two of the employees are entitled to official immunity and two of the employees are entitled to summary judgment based on the evidence presented to the trial court.
The complaint alleged that the four county employees negligently failed to inspect the county road on which the truck driver was traveling. A proper inspection, the plaintiffs contend, would have revealed that vegetation obscured "any traffic control devices on the road." The only traffic control device addressed in the summary judgment motion was a "stop ahead" sign. The complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to monitor the accident history of the intersection, contrary to established conventions. The complaint identifies the four defendants by name only; it does not indicate whether they are being sued in their individual or official capacities.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the employees, finding first that the DOT controlled and maintained the intersection and stop signs where the wreck took place. Therefore, the court held, the evidence failed "as a matter of law to show that these defendants breached any legal duties owed to the plaintiffs in regard to the repair or maintenance of the intersection...."
Second, regarding the "stop ahead" sign on the county road on which the truck was traveling, the trial court found that the evidence showed the defendants had inspected and maintained the sign in a reasonable manner; that no evidence showed the defendants had notice of any defective conditions; and that no evidence showed that the truck driver could not have seen the sign due to any defective conditions.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in finding that the defendants are entitled to immunity, in finding that no significant factual issues remain, and in striking an affidavit tendered to support their opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
In reviewing the grant or denial of summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the evidence. Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga.App. 137, 138(2), 479 S.E.2d 432 (1996). As the movant for summary judgment, the county employees had the burden to show there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, warranted judgment as a matter of law. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991).
Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (d), Ga. Const. (1983). In other words, public officials are immune from damages that result from their performance of discretionary functions, unless those functions were undertaken with malice or intent to cause injury. Schmidt v. Adams, 211 Ga.App. 156, 438 S.E.2d 659 (1993). The plaintiffs here do not allege that any of these four county employees acted with malice or intent to cause injury, so if the damages complained of arise from discretionary actions, the employees have official immunity. If the damages arise from the performance or nonperformance of ministerial duties, the employees do not have official immunity.
"The decision of whether acts of a public official are ministerial or discretionary is determined by the facts of the particular case." Nelson v. Spalding County, 249 Ga. 334, 336(2)(a), 290 S.E.2d 915 (1982).
A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty. A discretionary act, however, calls for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails examining the facts, reaching reasoned conclusions, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banks v. Happoldt
...and inspecting the barricade were ministerial and were therefore not protected by official immunity. Id. at 97, 395 S.E.2d 275. See Phillips v. Walls25 (actions of road crews in carrying out road maintenance as directed were Here, no decision or established procedure directed that Pate Road......
-
Daley v. Clark, No. A06A1166.
...had ministerial duty to obey county policy requiring the investigation of complaints regarding county roads); Phillips v. Walls, 242 Ga.App. 309, 312(1)(a), 529 S.E.2d 626 (2000) (actions of road crews in carrying out directions regarding inspection and maintenance are ministerial); Lincoln......
-
Bajjani v. Gwinnett County School Dist., A05A1781.
...(citations and punctuation omitted); compare Merrow v. Hawkins, 266 Ga. 390, 392(2), 467 S.E.2d 336 (1996). 8. Phillips v. Walls, 242 Ga.App. 309, 311(1), 529 S.E.2d 626 (2000) (citation omitted). 9. Ga. L.1994, p. 1012, § 2. 10. 274 Ga.App. 219, 617 S.E.2d 575 (2005). 11. Id. at 221-224(1)......
-
Standard v. Hobbs, A03A1437.
...reaching reasoned conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed. (Citation omitted.) Phillips v. Walls, 242 Ga.App. 309, 311(1), 529 S.E.2d 626 (2000). The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited prot......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...of official immunity." Id. at 87, 543 S.E.2d at 393 (quoting Banks v. Patton, 202 Ga. App. 168, 170, 413 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1991)). 365. 242 Ga. App. 309, 529 S.E.2d 626 (2000). 366. Id. at 310, 529 S.E.2d at 628. Plaintiffs charged that a proper inspection would have revealed a vegetation-ob......
-
"official Immunity" in Local Government Law: a Quantifiable Confrontation
...that the officer's failure to activate his siren constituted an act of negligence, not a deliberate intent to do a wrongful act. Id. 153. 529 S.E.2d 626 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). Phillips was a wrongful death action arising out of an intersection collision that plaintiff alleged resulted from ne......