POSTELL v. ANDERSON Et Al.
334 Ga. App. 331
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs J. Timothy and Danelle Anderson sued paraprofessional Pamela Postell for injuries their wheelchair-bound son S.A. sustained when his wheelchair rolled and flipped during a school outing she supervised.
- Postell worked in a special education classroom and held a Georgia Professional Standards Commission certificate; she was supervised by teacher Susan Frankel.
- On October 25, 2011, Postell escorted S.A. and another special-education student (J.B.) to a tulip-planting near the school sign at the bottom of a hill; J.B. became disruptive.
- Postell removed her hands from S.A.’s wheelchair to attend to J.B.; the wheelchair then rolled away and flipped.
- Postell moved for summary judgment asserting official (qualified) immunity because her actions were discretionary; the trial court denied the motion, and Postell appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Postell’s conduct was discretionary supervision and she was entitled to immunity absent malice or intent to injure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Postell’s actions were ministerial (no immunity) or discretionary (immunity) | Postell had a duty to follow teachers’ instructions and a purported rule to keep hands on a wheelchair until brake set, making the act ministerial | Postell’s choice to monitor and attend to a disruptive student was an exercise of supervisory judgment—discretionary—so qualified immunity applies | Court held actions discretionary; immunity applies because no evidence of malice or intent to injure |
| Whether existence of teacher warnings created a specific directive making act ministerial | Warnings about gravity and weight of chair rendered conduct ministerial | Warnings did not convert routine supervisory judgment into a ministerial act | Court held general warnings did not eliminate discretion |
| Whether alleged rule requiring hands on wheelchair was in effect or establishes ministerial duty | Plaintiffs asserted a simple absolute rule imposed ministerial duty | Postell presented no policy, training, or directive requiring hands on wheelchair in this context | Court found plaintiffs failed to show any clear directive; duty not ministerial |
| Whether Postell acted in loco parentis under OCGA § 20-2-215 (alternative immunity argument) | Plaintiffs argued in loco parentis might affect liability | Postell argued in loco parentis supports immunity | Court did not reach this issue because qualified immunity disposition resolved the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Effingham County v. Rhodes, 307 Ga. App. 504 (public-employee summary judgment standard and ministerial/discretionary distinction)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (standard for no-evidence showing on summary judgment)
- Roper v. Greenway, 294 Ga. 112 (ministerial duty may be established by written/unwritten policy or supervisor directive)
- Aliffi v. Liberty County School Dist., 259 Ga. App. 713 (supervising students is a discretionary act)
- Butler v. Doe, 328 Ga. App. 431 (student supervision during presentation is discretionary)
- Payne v. Twiggs County School Dist., 232 Ga. App. 175 (policy enforcement decisions are discretionary)
- Perkins v. Morgan County School Dist., 222 Ga. App. 831 (enforcement decisions are discretionary)
- Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91 (disciplinary/enforcement decisions are discretionary)
- Banks v. Happoldt, 271 Ga. App. 146 (definition and distinction of ministerial vs. discretionary acts)