Davis v. Effingham County Board of Commissioners
328 Ga. App. 579
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Theron and Dana Davis sued the Effingham County Board of Commissioners, Sheriff McDuffie, Deputy Provost, two private contractors, and an employee for damages after Mr. Davis’ truck struck a pothole on a county road.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the County defendants, and the Davises appeal challenging immunity, ministerial/discretionary acts, and nuisance claims.
- Deputy Provost testified he responded to a pothole report on Chimney Road, inspected the road, found shoulder potholes outside the travel lane, and requested a work order to fix potholes.
- Mr. Davis testified he hit a pothole on May 25 that was flooded over and extended into the travel lane; flooding on Chimney Road was reported the same period.
- A later deputy could not locate any potholes on Chimney Road when investigating the May 25 report, during a period of widespread flooding.
- Chimney Road potholes led to written departmental procedures requiring deputies to report hazards and evaluate each situation, with discretion in determining what constitutes a road hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nuisance/inverse condemnation claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Davises allege nuisance and inverse condemnation damages from a pothole-caused injury. | County and officials are immune from personal injury and nuisance recovery; nuisance to be inverse condemnation requires public taking. | Nuisance and inverse condemnation claims barred; immunity applies; single isolated pothole injury not a public nuisance. |
| Whether Deputy Provost is protected by official immunity for discretionary actions | Deputy violated duties by failing to address road hazards; policy does not provide ministerial duties. | Deputy’s inspection and decision whether pothole constituted a road hazard were discretionary; policy required independent evaluation. | Deputy Provost is entitled to official (qualified) immunity; actions were discretionary. |
| Whether Davises’ continuing nuisance claim lies under the facts | Nuisance persisted due to county-maintained road condition and flooding. | No continuous, regularly repetitious act or condition; single, isolated incident not a nuisance. | No ongoing nuisance claim; Davises’ nuisance claim fails as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood v. Todd, 287 Ga. 164 (Ga. 2010) (de novo review for summary judgment; burden-shifting standard)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1991) (summary judgment burden-shifting; nonmoving party must show triable issue)
- Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618 (Ga. 2010) (official immunity requires discretionary action; ministerial vs discretionary distinction)
- Roper v. Greenway, 294 Ga. 112 (Ga. 2013) (ministerial duties require clear, definite execution; discretion analysis fact-specific)
- Payne v. State, 275 Ga. 181 (Ga. 2002) (roadway defined; discretion in viewing road hazards; difference between roadway and shoulder)
- Desprint Svcs. v. DeKalb County, 188 Ga. App. 218 (Ga. App. 1988) (single malfunction not a nuisance; public works damage not automatically nuisance)
- Morris v. Douglas County Bd. of Health, 274 Ga. 898 (Ga. 2002) (nuisance requires continuous or regularly repetitious act/condition)
- Early County v. Fincher, 184 Ga. App. 47 (Ga. App. 1987) (sovereign immunity generally bars county actions unless waived)