Burroughs v. Mitchell County
313 Ga. App. 8
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Burroughs slipped while disposing of trash at a county sanitation facility and sued two county employees, the county, and Seminole Sanitation Services.
- The county designed, built, leased the land for the facility, and maintains it; Seminole Sanitation serviced the dumpsters at the facility.
- Burroughs had never visited the site; the setup allows residents to pull off, park, walk onto a platform, and dump trash into dumpsters whose tops are near platform level.
- Burroughs fell when dumping, claiming the dumpster edge was four to five feet from the platform edge; injuries were severe and lasting.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants without explanation; on appeal, issues include official immunity for county employees and Seminole Sanitation’s alleged negligence.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court on official-immunity grounds, vacated on Seminole Sanitation’s negligent-damage claim, and remanded to address expert admissibility and reconsider summary judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official immunity for Adams and Hatcher | Burroughs argues failure to install guardrails violated ministerial duty, defeating immunity. | Guardrail decision was discretionary; SBC guardrail requirement not binding since facility is not a building. | Affirmed on immunity; guardrail duty not ministerial. |
| Seminole Sanitation’s liability based on gap | Gap between dumpster and platform caused or contributed to fall. | No evidence gap caused the fall; plaintiff unable to prove causation. | No causation shown; summary judgment for Seminole on this theory affirmed. |
| Seminole Sanitation’s liability based on bent landing and expert admissibility | Bent landing created tripping hazard; expert opinion supports causation. | Expert opinion may be inadmissible; trial court should determine admissibility first. | Vacated; remanded to determine expert admissibility and then reconsider summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teston v. Collins, 217 Ga. App. 829 (1995) (official immunity when actions are discretionary)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (2001) (official immunity; ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- Harvey v. Nichols, 260 Ga. App. 187 (2003) (discretionary vs ministerial test for public officials)
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (2009) (ministerial vs discretionary acts; context-dependent)
- Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618 (2010) (fact-specific test for ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- Banks v. Happoldt, 271 Ga. App. 146 (2004) (ministerial duty requires clear, definite tasks)
- Heller v. City of Atlanta, 290 Ga. App. 345 (2008) (execution of a specific task can be ministerial; depends on statute)
- GE Capital Mtg. Svcs. v. Clack, 271 Ga. 82 (1999) (summary judgment standard; evidentiary considerations)
- Connell v. Long, 248 Ga. 716 (1982) (legal question for court regarding application of code provisions)
- Law v. Soltis, 259 Ga. 502 (1989) (legal conclusions not evidence on summary judgment)
- An v. Active Pest Control South, 313 Ga. App. 110 (2011) (gatekeeper role in expert admissibility under OCGA 24-9-67.1)
- Brady v. Elevator Specialists, 287 Ga. App. 304 (2007) (appellate review of expert-admissibility rulings)