Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773 (2014)
P tripped and fell on a sidewalk at Peach County High School. She sued certain individuals who work for Peach County. She alleged that the individual defendants negligently performed the ministerial duties of inspecting, maintaining, and repairing the sidewalk and road where she fell.
Defendants filed a MTD, alleging that the claims against them were barred by the doctrine of official immunity. The pivotal determination is whether the school officials’ actions or inactions constitute the violation of a ministerial or discretionary duty.
The doctrine of official immunity has developed largely through case law, providing that a public officer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts but is not liable for his discretionary acts unless they are willful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority.
A ministerial duty is one that requires the execution of a specific duty. A discretionary act is one that is not specifically directed.
The distinction between a discretionary act and ministerial duty is highly fact specific, which cannot be answered at the motion to dismiss stage. A MTD should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.
At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that P would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support. There could be evidence of some explicit detailed laundry list of discrete tasks each individual defendant was required to perform on graduation night to ensure that all curbs and water drains around the school were in safe condition. It is not relevant, at this stage, that the existence of such a laundry list is unlikely.
Justice Nahmias wrote an interesting concurring opinion. He proposed that, to reduce expenses to the county, the trial court could enter protective orders governing discovery (OCGA 9-11-26(c)), to control the sequence and timing of discovery (OCGA 9-11-26(d)), and to establish pretrial procedure (OCGA 9-11-16(a)(5)). This could be done to focus on the issue of whether any applicable ministerial duties were violated. “By carefully utilizing their authority to manage discovery and pretrial practice, trial courts should be able to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this and similar cases involving official immunity.
