343 Ga. App. 22
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Andrew Johnson fled a Georgia State Patrol officer at high speed and ignored signals to stop; the officer used a PIT maneuver causing Johnson’s car to hit a tree and injure him.
- Johnson sued the Georgia Department of Public Safety (DPS), alleging the officer negligently implemented DPS PIT-maneuver policy; DPS asserted respondeat superior liability and sovereign immunity defenses under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA).
- DPS filed a pretrial OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, invoking two GTCA exceptions that preserve sovereign immunity: OCGA § 50-21-24(6) (method of law enforcement/policy) and OCGA § 50-21-24(7) (assault/battery).
- The trial court, after considering discovery, deferred ruling on the motion until trial pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12(d) and certified the order for interlocutory appeal; DPS appealed.
- The Court of Appeals analyzed whether the trial court abused its discretion in deferring and distinguished factual jurisdictional challenges (where evidence may be received) from facial challenges (decided on complaint allegations).
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s deferral as to the § 50-21-24(6) policy-based defense but vacated the deferral as to the § 50-21-24(7) assault/battery defense and remanded for a prompt pretrial ruling on that facial challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the suit under GTCA § 50-21-24(6) (method of providing law enforcement) | Johnson: injury resulted from officer negligently implementing a non-defective PIT policy (not a defective policy) | DPS: officer properly implemented policy so State retains immunity | Court: Factual challenge largely overlaps merits; trial court did not abuse discretion in deferring ruling until trial |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the suit under GTCA § 50-21-24(7) (assault/battery) | Johnson: PIT was negligent implementation of policy, not an assault or battery that triggers immunity | DPS: PIT was an intentional contact (assault/battery) so immunity applies; this is a facial jurisdictional challenge | Court: This is a facial challenge appropriate for prompt pretrial resolution; trial court abused discretion by deferring and must rule pretrial |
| Proper procedure for OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks | Johnson: disputed facts should be resolved at trial | DPS: some jurisdictional issues can be decided pretrial without extensive fact-finding | Court: Distinguishes facial vs factual attacks; factual challenges may permit evidence and deferment; facial challenges should be decided pretrial when practicable |
| Standard of review for trial court’s decision to defer | N/A | N/A | Court reviews trial court’s exercise of discretion under OCGA § 9-11-12(d) and balances factors from Harrison; deferment was appropriate for fact-intensive, merits-overlapping § 50-21-24(6) claim but not for § 50-21-24(7) facial claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ga. Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis, 285 Ga. 203 (clarifies immunity for policy formulation vs. negligent implementation)
- Georgia Power Co. v. Harrison, 253 Ga. 212 (sets discretionary factors for deferring Rule 12 motions until trial)
- Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770 (courts should address immunity motions as early as practicable)
- James v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 337 Ga. App. 864 (distinguishes facial and factual jurisdictional attacks and use of evidence)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668 (trial court may take evidence on factual jurisdictional challenges and may use jury verdict advisory only)