Guy v. Housing Authority of the City of Augusta
S24G1346
| Ga. | Jun 24, 2025Background
- Christina Guy sued the Housing Authority of the City of Augusta, alleging negligence after she was shot outside her residence.
- The Housing Authority was created under state statute but activated and managed by the City of Augusta.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Authority, finding it immune from suit under sovereign immunity as a municipal corporation, a state instrumentality, and a municipal instrumentality.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Authority was immune as a municipal instrumentality, relying on precedent related to state instrumentalities.
- The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and remanded, finding the lower courts failed to analyze whether municipal instrumentalities were immune under common law as of 1776.
- The Supreme Court refrained from deciding the ultimate question and directed the lower courts to apply the proper common law analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Guy's Argument | Housing Authority's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Housing Authority have sovereign immunity as a municipal instrumentality? | Authority is not entitled to municipal-based sovereign immunity. | Authority is immune as a municipal instrumentality under precedent and statutory law. | Vacated and remanded; courts must analyze immunity under the English common law as adopted by Georgia, not existing precedent alone. |
| Does the Georgia Constitution or statutes provide immunity to municipal instrumentalities? | Neither extends immunity to entities like the Authority. | Constitutional and statutory provisions confer such immunity. | Constitution/statutes do not themselves confer immunity on municipal instrumentalities; analysis must be grounded in common law. |
| Should state law precedent for "instrumentalities of the state" apply to municipalities? | Such precedent is inapplicable to municipal entities. | Precedent should apply similarly to municipal instrumentalities. | Precedent for state instrumentalities does not govern municipal entities' immunity; must look to common law antecedents. |
| Did the lower courts apply the correct legal framework? | Guy contends the wrong framework was used. | Authority maintains the correct law was applied. | Lower courts applied incorrect analytical approach; remanded for proper analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Thomaston v. Bridges, 264 Ga. 4 (Ga. 1994) (sovereign immunity under the Georgia Constitution does not extend to municipalities)
- Gatto v. City of Statesboro, 312 Ga. 164 (Ga. 2021) (municipal immunity is recognized as akin to sovereign immunity, but with distinct origins and limitations)
- City of Atlanta v. Mitcham, 296 Ga. 576 (Ga. 2015) (OCGA § 36-33-1 reiterates that municipalities are protected by sovereign immunity)
- Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of College Park, 313 Ga. 294 (Ga. 2022) (reaffirming sovereign immunity for municipalities and limitations on waiver)