Cooley v. Bryant
331 Ga. App. 718
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jonathan Bryant, a Muscogee County Prison inmate, was injured when a three-wheeled push mower flipped while he was on a supervised inmate work detail at a city park.
- Correctional Officer Michael Cooley supervised the crew and testified he inspected equipment (oil, gas, blades) and would take defective items to the maintenance shop, but there was no written inspection policy.
- The mower had multiple defects: a missing discharge flap, an inoperable safety/kill lever (requiring removal of the spark plug via zip tie to stop the engine), and was used on hilly terrain despite being intended for flat ground.
- Bryant alleges negligent inspection and maintenance by Cooley in his individual capacity; Cooley moved for summary judgment asserting official immunity (qualified immunity) for discretionary acts.
- The trial court held Cooley’s inspection/maintenance duties were ministerial (not discretionary) and denied summary judgment as to Cooley personally; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded for a jury to decide whether Cooley had actual knowledge of the mower’s dangerous condition, which would trigger the ministerial duty to send it for repair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooley is entitled to official (qualified) immunity for negligent inspection/maintenance | Bryant: Cooley performed ministerial duties (was required to take defective equipment to maintenance once aware), so no immunity for negligent performance | Cooley: Inspections/repair decisions were discretionary (no clear directive), so official immunity protects him | Remanded: factual question whether Cooley knew mower was defective; if so, ministerial duty to send for repair applies and immunity does not bar trial |
| Whether absence of a written policy makes inspections discretionary | Bryant: Unwritten departmental practice required taking defective equipment to maintenance, creating a ministerial duty | Cooley: No written policy or directive; discretion in deciding when to take equipment out of service | Court: Unwritten practice can create a ministerial duty if jury finds Cooley had knowledge of defects |
| Whether summary judgment should be resolved as a matter of law | Bryant: Facts are disputed (knowledge of defects), so jury must decide ministerial vs. discretionary | Cooley: Even assuming knowledge, duty to repair was discretionary as a matter of law | Court: Denial of immunity turns on disputed facts; jury must decide knowledge and application of ministerial duty |
| Scope of remand (what issues remain for jury) | Bryant: Liability and damages should be decided if ministerial duty is found | Cooley: Official immunity should bar personal liability as a matter of law | Court: Remanded for jury to determine knowledge of defect and, if ministerial duty triggered, all liability and damages issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Campbell, 320 Ga. App. 362 (summary judgment standard and ministerial/discretionary distinction)
- Williams v. Pauley, 331 Ga. App. 129 (official/qualified immunity framework for public employees)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (official immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial)
- Eshleman v. Key, 326 Ga. App. 883 (factual disputes about knowledge can defeat summary judgment on immunity)
- Glass v. Gates, 311 Ga. App. 563 (unwritten departmental policies can create ministerial duties for supervisors)
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (ministerial act must be execution of a specific duty)
- Roper v. Greenway, 294 Ga. 112 (procedures/directives must be clear and specific to convert acts to ministerial duties)