HILL v. JACKSON Et Al.
336 Ga. App. 679
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Richard Hill committed suicide while an outsourced Fulton County inmate housed in Hall County and later transported to the Fulton County jail; a Fulton County Superior Court judge had ordered Hill placed on suicide watch.
- Plaintiff Gabrielle Hill (daughter) sued Fulton County Sheriff Jackson and several Fulton County employees (Riley, Robertson, Weaver, Martin, Thomas), Correctional Medical Associates, Inc. (CMA), and CMA employee Charlene Dumas for wrongful death/negligence; most defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Key factual disputes: whether the suicide-watch order was routed and communicated properly within Fulton records/classifications; whether Fulton personnel (and CMA) knew Hill was on suicide watch when he was returned on Sept. 16; Weaver placed Hill in an attorney booth where Hill hanged himself.
- Relevant policies and contract: multiple Fulton jail policies prescribed specific procedures for inmates on suicide precautions (e.g., single-cell housing, 15-minute or constant visual checks); the CMA contract expressly excluded mental-health obligations for inmates not in the physical custody of Fulton facilities unless the Sheriff and CMA agreed otherwise.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part—reversing as to Weaver and Riley and affirming as to Jackson, Martin, Thomas, Robertson, CMA, and Dumas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail policies created ministerial (non‑discretionary) duties for Weaver | Policies and the suicide-watch order required specific actions (e.g., 24/7 visual checks), so Weaver had ministerial duties and is personally liable | Weaver invoked qualified immunity arguing duties were discretionary | Reversed: duties were ministerial as to Weaver; summary judgment improper for Weaver |
| Whether policies created ministerial duties for Martin and Thomas | Policies requiring communication and reclassification created ministerial duties | Policies require discretion to assess whether conditions exist and thus are discretionary | Affirmed for Martin and Thomas (discretionary duties; qualified immunity applies) |
| Whether records employees (Riley, Robertson) had ministerial duties in handling suicide-watch orders | Riley and Robertson had fixed record-distribution and data-entry duties that triggered upon receipt of orders | Duties involved discretion about routing/what to enter; qualify for immunity | Reversed for Riley (ministerial duty to copy order info to inmate card); affirmed for Robertson (no specific ministerial duty proved) |
| Whether Sheriff Jackson breached a ministerial duty by contracting out medical care / is individually liable | Jackson had a ministerial duty to provide medical care and may have failed to ensure treatment for outsourced inmates | Jackson showed he provided care via contract with CMA and no evidence raised triable issue of personal breach; he was not involved in day-to-day operations | Affirmed for Jackson (summary judgment affirmed; plaintiff failed to show triable issue of breach) |
| Whether CMA/Dumas owed duty or breached standard of care / proximate cause | CMA/Dumas either had contractual or assumed duty to outsourced inmates and failed to act; their communications created responsibility | CMA contract expressly excluded inmates not physically in Fulton custody; no evidence CMA/Dumas undertook care or knew Hill was present on Sept. 16 | Affirmed for CMA and Dumas (no triable issue on duty/breach; summary judgment proper) |
Key Cases Cited
- McKissick v. Giroux, 272 Ga. App. 499 (discusses summary judgment standard and viewing facts for nonmovant)
- Cox Enters. v. Nix, 274 Ga. 801 (nonmovant must produce specific evidence creating triable issue)
- Jobling v. Shelton, 334 Ga. App. 483 (defines ministerial vs. discretionary duties; burden shifting on qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618 (policy requiring discretion is not ministerial)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (qualified immunity limits liability for discretionary official acts; ministerial acts may result in individual liability)
- Heath v. Rush, 259 Ga. App. 887 (speculation insufficient to create inference of fact on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Jones, 323 Ga. App. 311 (affirmance proper if summary judgment is right for any reason raised and nonmovant had chance to respond)
- Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498 (elements of medical negligence claim)
- Elwell v. Keefe, 312 Ga. App. 393 (contract construction is a question of law suitable for summary judgment)