Georgia Department of Human Services v. Spruill
294 Ga. 100
Ga.2013Background
- Georgia Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for state officers acting within official duties, but discretionary function exception may apply.
- Guardians of two infant boys sued DHS, alleging negligent DFCS investigation of a pediatrician’s neglect report.
- Trial court dismissed, finding the discretionary function exception applied; Court of Appeals reversed.
- DFCS investigator Jackson conducted a multi-day, unannounced investigation and prepared a safety plan for the family.
- DFCS policy governed response times, unannounced visits, and screening procedures, but allowed discretion in implementation.
- Court held that Jackson’s investigative decisions involved policy considerations and satisfied the discretionary function exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the discretionary function exception apply to investigatory decisions? | Spruill argued no governmental policy decisions occurred. | DHS argued Jackson’s decisions implicated policy judgments. | Yes; exception applied. |
| Did DFCS policy give Jackson discretion in key investigative choices? | Jackson had no discretion on timing, unannounced visits, or undressing. | Policy permitted discretion in these areas through supervision and evaluation. | Yes; discretion existed. |
| Were Jackson’s discretionary decisions informed by social, political, or economic factors? | Decisions were routine child-care actions, not policy-driven. | Decisions balanced safety, parental rights, and resource constraints as policy judgments. | Yes; decisions weighed policy factors. |
| Do Edwards, Brantley, or similar precedents govern this child-investigation context? | Those cases control and render this inquiry non-policy-based. | This case involves state actors, not in loco parentis, aligning with discretionary-function doctrine. | Not controlling; discretion here corresponds to policy judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brantley v. Dept. of Human Resources, 271 Ga. 679 (1999) (discretionary function doctrine applies to policy judgments)
- Edwards v. Ga. Dept. of Children & Youth Svcs., 271 Ga. 890 (2000) (policy-level discretion governs discretionary-function immunity)
- Brown v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 6 (1996) (routine decisions fall outside discretionary function)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (federal discretionary-function standard informs Georgia toll)
- United States v. S. A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (policy factors govern discretionary judgments)
- Rhoden v. Dept. of Public Safety, 221 Ga. App. 844 (1996) (investigative and law enforcement decisions may be discretionary)