 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Leake v. Murphy7/7/2005
that a public official who fails to perform purely ministerial duties required by law is subject to an action for damages by one who is injured by his omission." It follows that the trial court erred in dismissing that portion of the complaint which alleges that the Superintendent and the Board members failed to develop a safety plan for the school as required by OCGA § 20-2-1185. On the other hand, if a motion for summary judgment is filed and evidence of a plan that predates the attack on Anna and addresses security issues is presented, the defendants would be entitled to official immunity.
2. " onitoring, supervising, and controlling the activities of students is a discretionary action protected by the doctrine of official immunity." The Leakes argue that the trial court erred in finding that the defendants' acts or omissions related to a duty to monitor, supervise, or control students. To the extent that the trial court's order can be interpreted as a ruling that the duty of Wilbanks and the Board members to prepare a school safety plan which addressed security issues was a discretionary function, the court erred, as we have held in Division 1. The applicability of this argument to the principal and her front office staff (defendants Allred, Finn and Switzer) will be discussed below.
3. In their third enumerated error, the Leakes argue that the trial court erred in finding that the failure of defendants Allred, Finn and Switzer to comply with school policies and procedures adopted after the 2001 incident was discretionary rather than ministerial. We disagree with the Leakes and agree with the trial court.
"Generally, the determination of whether an action is discretionary or ministerial depends on the character of the specific actions complained of . . . and is to be made on a case-by-case basis." "The Georgia courts have consistently held that making decisions regarding the means used to supervise school children is a discretionary function of the school principal." "Supervision of students is considered discretionary even where specific school policies designed to help control and monitor students have been violated." The rule that principals and teachers are immune from actions involving supervising and monitoring students has been applied uniformly in cases where students have been injured or killed.
Supervising and monitoring students includes, for purposes of deciding immunity questions, safeguarding the students from harm caused by intruders. A binding precedent is Kelly v. Lewis. Kelly involved the fatal shooting of a student, apparently at or near the entrance to a public high school. The plaintiffs alleged that because a teacher failed to stand at the entrance in the morning, which was his assigned duty, the teacher could be held liable for negligent failure to perform a ministerial duty. The plaintiffs further contended that the principal could be held liable for failing to post a duty roster identifying the persons responsible for monitoring the entrance. We disagreed, stating "that the complete failure to perform a discretionary act is the same as the negligent performance of that act for the purposes of determining whether such action was discretionary or ministerial." Similarly, the failure of defendants Allred, Finn and Switzer to monitor the entrance lobby to guard against assailants like Hagaman is a "complete failure to perform a discretionary act." Georgia's doctrine of official immunity means that they cannot be held accountable for their failure.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Andrews, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|