PHILLIP BEASLEY v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, A21A0593

Background

June 15, 2017: While GDOC transported 33 inmates, two correctional sergeants were killed after two inmates breached the transport bus and seized officers’ weapons.
After escaping, the inmates carjacked Phillip Beasley at gunpoint; Beasley escaped and later developed PTSD, anxiety, and related damages.
The Beasleys served notice in 2018 and sued GDOC in 2019 asserting public nuisance, negligence/gross negligence, and trespass arising from alleged policy violations in the transport.
GDOC moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), invoking the assault-and-battery exception; the trial court granted the motion.
On appeal, the Beasleys argued the officers’ conduct created a public nuisance and that the GTCA exception should not bar recovery because the State’s tort was a proximate cause distinct from the inmates’ assault.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ transport created a public nuisance allowing recovery against the State	Beasley: improper inmate transport and roadway obstruction constituted a public nuisance that caused his injuries	GDOC: any injury resulted from inmates’ assault/battery, not from a compensable nuisance	Held: No. Personal injury claims arising from nuisance do not create recovery against the State here; injuries resulted from the assault/battery and are barred by the GTCA exception
Whether assault-and-battery exception bars claims when State created an antecedent tort	Beasley: exception should not immunize GDOC for its own tortious conduct that contributed to loss	GDOC: GTCA bars recovery for losses resulting from assaults even when perpetrated by non-State actors	Held: Exception applies; the exception covers all losses resulting from the enumerated torts irrespective of who committed them
Whether loss can be apportioned between State’s negligence and inmates’ assault (proximate-cause argument)	Beasley: multiple proximate causes exist; loss can be apportioned so State remains liable for part	GDOC: the actual loss was caused solely by the assault/battery, so apportionment cannot evade the statutory exception	Held: Court rejects apportionment here; the assault was the operative cause and bars recovery under the exception
Whether GTCA should be reinterpreted to mirror FTCA (overrule precedent)	Beasley: GTCA should be read like FTCA; courts should limit the assault-and-battery exception to State actors	GDOC: GTCA language differs from FTCA and Georgia precedent governs; Supreme Court precedent binds	Held: Court declines to reinterpret or overrule precedent; follows Georgia decisions applying the exception broadly

Key Cases Cited

Georgia Dep’t of Transp. v. Heller, 285 Ga. 262 (Ga. 2009) (distinguishes situations where State’s act — not an assault — caused the loss)
Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Cmty. Srvc. Bd., 273 Ga. 715 (Ga. 2001) (assault-and-battery exception covers all losses resulting from enumerated torts regardless of actor)
Dep’t of Human Resources v. Coley, 247 Ga. App. 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (focus on act causing loss, not on government duty; assault exception applies even if non-State actor committed assault)
Hutchinson v. Dep’t of Human Resources, 217 Ga. App. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (earlier articulation of focusing on act causing loss under GTCA)
Ga. Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, Inc., 294 Ga. 593 (Ga. 2014) (explains limitations of nuisance doctrine and sovereign immunity in state-context)