Carol Grant v. Georgia Forestry Commission, 338 Ga. App. 146

Background

Early morning collision on I-16 (March 17, 2011) in near-zero visibility from smoke/fog killed two plaintiffs' decedents; burn on nearby property had been permitted and later grew to ~45 smoldering acres.
Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) personnel responded day of burn, monitored/assigned resources, observed smoke drifting away from I-16, and around 8:00 p.m. asked Bulloch County 911 to notify GSP and sheriff to monitor the area.
GDOT maintenance foreman (Mixon) placed warning signs on SR 67 at sheriff’s request on March 16; returned later and left signs overnight. On March 17 he was notified by GDOT TMC that law enforcement requested signs on I-16 and that I-16 was closed after the Accident.
Plaintiff (Grant) sued GFC and GDOT for wrongful death/negligence for failing to notify, coordinate, monitor, assess hazard, and place warning signs; defendants moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA).
Trial court granted dismissal; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed whether GTCA waivers/exceptions applied and whether factual record supported dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GFC is immune under OCGA §50-21-24(6) for failing to notify/coordinate re: limited visibility	Grant: GFC failed to notify GSP and coordinate with GDOT about hazardous smoke, negligently implementing policy	GFC: Actions fell within policy implementation and thus immunity under subsection (6)	Court: GFC immune for claims tied to reporting limited-visibility conditions because evidence shows GFC learned of visibility only after the Accident (immunity applies)
Whether GFC breached independent duty to advise GSP of large burns/wildfires (separate from limited-visibility duty)	Grant: GFC had a duty to advise GSP of the large burn and may have delegated notification to 911 without ensuring GSP was informed	GFC: Notification via county 911 satisfied the Agreement	Held: Trial court erred—record insufficient to show GFC fulfilled duty; sovereign immunity not established on this claim (reversed as to this narrow claim)
Whether GDOT is immune under OCGA §50-21-24(6) for failures to monitor, assess, and warn motorists	Grant: GDOT failed to monitor I-16, assess hazard, and place signs as required by policy	GDOT: Its duties are triggered only upon notification; policies do not require proactive roadway monitoring, so its acts were policy implementation and immune	Held: GDOT immune—policies impose no duty to monitor and no evidence GDOT received notice before accident; dismissal affirmed
Whether discretionary-function exception OCGA §50-21-24(2) bars GFC claim re: delegation to 911	Grant: Delegation was not discretionary immunity; delegation may have been negligent	GFC (raised on appeal): Decision to delegate involved policy judgment and thus discretionary function	Held: Trial court applied wrong test; record undeveloped so dismissal under subsection (2) was erroneous — remand/denial of dismissal on that ground

Key Cases Cited

Georgia Forestry Comm. v. Canady, 280 Ga. 825 (Ga. 2006) (subsection (6) shields state policy decisions and implementation re: fire/smoke highway incidents)
Georgia Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis, 285 Ga. 203 (Ga. 2009) (state immunity unavailable where employee negligently omits acts not authorized by policy)
Georgia Dept. of Human Svcs. v. Spruill, 294 Ga. 100 (Ga. 2013) (application of discretionary-function exception analyzed under statutory definition)
Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (burden on plaintiff to show waiver of sovereign immunity; evidentiary hearing on immunity motions)
Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Wyche, 332 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate review defers to trial court factual findings on immunity if any evidence supports them)
Bobick v. Community & Southern Bank, 321 Ga. App. 855 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (motion to dismiss may be affirmed if correct for any reason)