James v. Georgia Department of Public Safety
337 Ga. App. 864
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 22, 2011, Latricka Sloan fled a roadblock; Georgia State Patrol officers pursued her with functioning lights, sirens, and radios for approximately 4.8 miles.
- The primary pursuing officer, observing dangerous driving and anticipating a high-traffic intersection ahead, performed a PIT maneuver ~1 mile before that intersection; Sloan’s car left the roadway, overturned, and she died.
- An internal Georgia State Patrol investigative review concluded the PIT maneuver complied with the Department of Public Safety’s pursuit policy; the commanding officer agreed.
- James (Sloan’s daughter) sued the Georgia Department of Public Safety alleging negligent pursuit and improper execution of the PIT maneuver; the Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.
- The trial court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing, found facts based on affidavits/depositions, concluded the law enforcement exception to the Georgia Tort Claims Act applied, and granted dismissal.
- James appealed, contesting the trial court’s pretrial factfinding, the exclusion of applying the self-contradictory testimony rule to officer testimony, and the sovereign immunity ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may make pretrial factual findings on motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | James: Court should treat complaint allegations as true or defer jurisdictional ruling to trial/jury because facts are disputed | Dept.: Under OCGA § 9-11-12(d) and § 9-11-43(b), court may receive affidavits/depositions and decide jurisdiction pretrial | Court: Trial court properly exercised discretion to hear evidence and make factual findings pretrial; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether self-contradictory testimony rule required ignoring officers’ testimony | James: Officers’ inconsistent testimony is self-contradictory and should be disregarded | Dept.: Officers are non-parties under Tort Claims Act; rule applies only to party testimony | Court: Rule applies only to party witnesses; officers are non-parties, so the rule does not apply |
| Whether Department waived sovereign immunity under Georgia Tort Claims Act (law enforcement exception) | James: Officer negligently implemented policy; exception should not bar claim | Dept.: Evidence shows officer acted within discretionary policy authority and internal review cleared compliance, so law enforcement exception applies | Court: Evidence supported trial court’s factual findings that officer acted in compliance with policy; law enforcement exception bars suit—sovereign immunity applies |
| Whether alternative assault-and-battery exception applies | James: Claims fall outside exceptions; liability should proceed | Dept.: Alternatively, claim fits assault-and-battery exception to waiver | Court: Not reached on merits because law enforcement exception dispositive; trial court’s alternative conclusion unnecessary to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelham v. Bd. of Regents, 321 Ga. App. 791 (discusses standard for reviewing sovereign immunity dismissal)
- Loehle v. Ga. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 334 Ga. App. 836 (similar pursuit case holding evidence supporting immunity where officer followed policy)
- Davis v. Ga. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 285 Ga. 203 (distinguishes cases where officer clearly acted outside policy)
- Thompson v. Ezor, 272 Ga. 849 (self-contradictory testimony rule applies only to party-witnesses)
- Diamond v. Dept. of Transp., 326 Ga. App. 189 (sovereign immunity and jurisdictional dismissal principles)
- Ga. Forestry Comm. v. Canady, 280 Ga. 825 (distinguishing policy formulation from execution for immunity analysis)