James Martin v. David Ledbetter
342 Ga. App. 208
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Martin (Assistant Building Official) and Colston (Building Inspector) worked for the Rome‑Floyd Building Inspection Department and inspected only work authorized by permits issued by the Department.
- Homeowner Appellees contracted Helbing (general contractor) and Crider (plumbing subcontractor) for 2009 renovations; Crider installed a water‑heater exhaust vent that terminated beneath a second‑floor bedroom window.
- Department records provided to Appellees included a remodel permit application and a plumbing permit record, but no permit specifically authorizing work on the exhaust vent was produced or shown to exist in the record.
- Appellants inspected portions of the renovation in January 2010; they did not inspect the water heater or exhaust vent because no permit authorizing those items was shown to have been issued.
- In 2013 Atlanta Gas Light informed Appellees the exhaust vent was improperly installed; Appellees sued the contractors and the inspectors (in their individual capacities) for negligent inspection and sought to hold them liable for children’s alleged carbon monoxide exposure.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on negligence claims against the inspectors; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Appellees failed to present evidence an essential element (duty) existed because no permit authorized inspection of the vent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inspectors owed legal/ministerial duty to inspect the exhaust vent | Inspectors had ministerial duty to inspect ventilation if it fell within the renovation permits | Inspectors only had duty to inspect work specifically authorized by Department permits; no permit covered the vent | Reversed: Plaintiffs failed to show duty because no record evidence a permit authorized the vent work |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on absence of essential element (duty) | Duty could be inferred from inspectors’ role and department inspection practices | Defendants showed absence of evidence that an authorized permit existed for the vent, shifting burden to plaintiffs | Defendants met burden; plaintiffs did not produce evidence to create a jury issue on duty |
| Whether official immunity or statute of limitations barred claims | Plaintiffs argued merits of negligence; did not overcome jurisdictional defenses in record | Defendants argued official immunity/statute barred claims; entitlement implicates duty/ministerial act | Moot after reversal on duty; court directed entry of summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether plaintiffs proved causation of CO exposure (concurring opinion ground) | Plaintiffs relied on pediatrician opinion to link vent placement to children’s CO exposure | Defendants argued plaintiffs presented no competent evidence that the improperly placed vent caused the exposure | Concurrence would reverse on lack of causation; majority reversed on duty and did not decide causation |
Key Cases Cited
- R & R Insulation Svcs. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 307 Ga. App. 419 (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Reese, 300 Ga. App. 82 (summary judgment principles)
- DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, 294 Ga. App. 38 (summary judgment and duty analysis)
- Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (official immunity and ministerial vs. discretionary acts)
- Grammens v. Dollar, 287 Ga. 618 (when policy creates ministerial duty)
- Common Cause/Ga. v. City of Atlanta, 279 Ga. 480 (definition of ministerial act)
- Kordares v. Gwinnett County, 220 Ga. App. 848 (inspector liability where no policy required the act)
- Webb v. Day, 273 Ga. App. 491 (elements of negligence)
- Mitchell v. Austin, 261 Ga. App. 585 (causation burden at summary judgment)
- Howell v. Willis, 317 Ga. App. 199 (what inspector’s actionable duties are during inspections)