City of Atlanta v. Mitcham
296 Ga. 576
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Mitcham sued the City of Atlanta and the police chief (official capacity), alleging negligent failure to provide necessary medical care for his diabetes while in police custody, causing serious injuries.
- After hospital discharge, officers were informed of Mitcham’s diabetic condition and need for insulin monitoring; Mitcham alleges officers failed to monitor or regulate his insulin.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on municipal sovereign immunity grounds under OCGA § 36-33-1; trial court denied, finding provision of inmate medical care to be ministerial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Cantrell v. Thurman and treating provision of medical care to inmates as a ministerial act waiving municipal immunity under § 36-33-1(b).
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether municipal provision of inmate medical care is a governmental function (immune) or a ministerial function (liability waiver).
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that inmate medical care is a governmental function for which municipal sovereign immunity has not been waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether providing medical care to inmates is a ministerial function that waives municipal sovereign immunity under OCGA § 36-33-1(b) | Mitcham: medical care is mandatory and non-discretionary, thus ministerial and subject to waiver | City: care of inmates is a governmental function tied to public safety, so sovereign immunity bars suit | Held: medical care for inmates is a governmental function; sovereign immunity not waived |
| Whether Cantrell (county constitutional waiver) controls municipal immunity analysis | Mitcham: Cantrell treats inmate medical care as ministerial and supports waiver | City: Cantrell involves constitutional waiver of county officials, not municipal sovereign immunity statute; not controlling | Held: Cantrell was improperly applied; constitutional official-immunity analysis differs from municipal sovereign immunity analysis |
| Whether the mandatory nature of a statutory duty converts the function into a ministerial one for municipal immunity purposes | Mitcham: statutorily-mandated duty (OCGA § 42-5-2(a)) means no discretion, so ministerial | City: Statutory mandate shows legislature directed a governmental duty benefiting public, not a waiver of municipal immunity | Held: Mandatory statutory duty does not convert the municipal function into a ministerial function for waiver purposes |
| Whether a suit against an official in official capacity is equivalent to suit against the municipality for immunity purposes | Mitcham: sued chief in official capacity seeking damages for alleged negligent medical care | City: official-capacity claim is effectively against the city and subject to municipal sovereign immunity | Held: Official-capacity suit is a suit against the city and barred by sovereign immunity here |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantrell v. Thurman, 231 Ga. App. 510 (Ct. App. 1998) (treated inmate medical care as ministerial in context of county/constitutional waiver)
- Hurley v. City of Atlanta, 208 Ga. 457 (Ga. 1951) (operation and maintenance of custody/convict care is governmental)
- Gray v. Mayor & City of Griffin, 111 Ga. 361 (Ga. 1900) (maintaining prison for safe-keeping is a governmental power)
- Nisbet v. City of Atlanta, 97 Ga. 650 (Ga. 1895) (municipality exercising governmental powers not liable for failure to provide medical treatment)
- Mayor & Council of Dalton v. Wilson, 118 Ga. 100 (Ga. 1903) (municipality has dual character: governmental and private/ministerial duties)
- Koehler v. Massell, 229 Ga. 359 (Ga. 1972) (discussing longstanding rule that municipalities are immune for governmental functions)