Cotton v. Smith
310 Ga. App. 428
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- N.F., a 14-year-old high school freshman, was released from LaGrange High School to a man who claimed to be her uncle; the man was a 52-year-old felon unaffiliated with the family and provided a false name.
- Smith, the front office employee, allowed the release without verifying the adult’s identity or authorization from the student’s master file.
- The incident occurred on September 3, 2008, and the man molested N.F. after leaving the school with her.
- Cotton, as parent and next friend, sued Smith and principal Cole for negligence in their individual capacities.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Smith (and to Cole by operation of law); Cotton appeals, challenging whether Smith’s duties were ministerial or discretionary and whether proximate cause and immunity issues were properly resolved.
- The court ultimately reverses the grant of summary judgment to Smith while affirming the grant to Cole by operation of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s duties to release students were ministerial or discretionary | Cotton contends duties were ministerial to follow mandatory rules | Smith argues duties were discretionary and immune | Smith’s duties were ministerial; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether Smith’s breach proximately caused N.F.’s injuries | N.F.’s release to an unauthorized person was a foreseeable risk | Intervening criminal act breaks causation; not reasonably foreseeable | There is a juried issue on proximate causation; not as a matter of law |
| Whether the trial court properly applied official immunity regarding Smith | Official immunity does not bar ministerial breach | Discretionary actions entitle Smith to immunity | Summary judgment against Smith on immunity was error; need trial on ministerial vs discretionary |
| Whether Cole’s summary judgment was properly affirmed by operation of law | Cole’s supervision breached duties; not argued on appeal | Appellate rule abandonment controls; no argument to challenge Cole | Affirmed by operation of law for Cole; Cotton’s challenge to Cole deemed abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. McDowell, 292 Ga.App. 731 (Ga.App. 2008) (ministerial duties for school checkout policies; discretion not allowed)
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (Ga. 2009) (supreme court: school employees’ duties were ministerial; no discretion)
- Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga.4 68 (Ga. 2006) (discretionary vs ministerial; standard for summary judgment)
- Ontario Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683 (Ga. 2002) (proximate causation; jury question; intervening acts)
- Prophecy, Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (Ga. 1986) (Prophecy rule for ignoring self-contradictory testimony on summary judgment)
- Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga.App. 91 (Ga.App. 1996) (proximate cause; foreseeability principles in school setting)