Ratliff v. McDonald, 326 Ga. App. 306

Ratliff sued Cobb County Sheriff Warren and six deputies for injuries from a parking-lot collision at the ADC.
Ratliff and Collor, concerned about threats by McDonald, sought help from ADC deputies; deputies directed them to the visitor’s center and then to the First Building location for Umrani’s release.
McDonald, outside the ADC, threatened Ratliff and Collor; she later struck them with a diesel truck in the ADC parking lot.
Ratliff asserted claims for assault and battery against McDonald, and negligence/recklessness against Warren and the Deputies.
The trial court granted summary judgment, holding sovereign immunity barred the claims against Warren and the Deputies in their official capacities and rejecting the merits of premises liability and recklessness.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims and that premises liability and recklessness claims fail on the merits; public duty doctrine is not a separate waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Warren and Deputies are protected by sovereign immunity	Ratliff argues waiver permitted claims against deputies and sheriff.	Warren and Deputies contend sovereign immunity bars claims in official capacity absent waiver.	Yes; sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims.
Whether Ratliff's claims against the Deputies in official capacities survive without waiver	Ratliff asserts liability despite immunity.	No waiver; official-capacity claims are barred.	barred; official-capacity claims fail.
Whether Ratliff established premises-liability liability against Deputies based on foreseeability / superior knowledge	Ratliff argues prior threats made McDonald’s attack reasonably foreseeable.	No evidence of prior similar incidents or superior knowledge; no foreseeability.	No; lack of foreseeability/superior knowledge; summary judgment proper.
Whether Recklessness claim survives given premises-liability failure	Ratliff seeks punitive damages under OCGA § 51-12-5.1.	Punitive damages require compensable underlying liability; premises liability fails.	No; punitive-damages claim fails.
Whether public-duty doctrine creates a separate basis for liability against Deputies	Ratliff argues doctrine permits recovery despite immunity.	Doctrine limits governmental liability; not a waiver when immunity applies.	Not applicable; doctrine does not create separate liability where immunity exists.

Burnside v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 309 Ga. App. 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (sovereign immunity threshold issue; immunity is immunity from suit)
Butler v. Carlisle, 299 Ga. App. 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (waiver burden on party seeking to benefit from waiver)
Russell v. Barrett, 296 Ga. App. 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (county liable for negligence only if sovereign immunity waived)
Robinson v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. App. 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (same principle for county liability and lack of waiver)
Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga. App. 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (sovereign-immunity framework for officials)
Dept. of Human Resources v. Coley, 247 Ga. App. 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (public duty doctrine described as limitation, not exception)
Rowe v. Coffey, 270 Ga. 715 (Ga. 1999) (public duty doctrine interacts with immunity; no standalone liability)
Griffin v. AAA Auto Club South, Inc., 221 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (foreseeability analysis for violent-crime risk in premises liability)
Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga. App. 801 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (intervening criminal acts and foreseeability in premises liability)
Drayton v. Kroger Co., 297 Ga. App. 484 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (foreseeability and similarity standard for prior incidents)
Agnes Scott College v. Clark, 273 Ga. App. 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (analysis of foreseeability without prior similar crimes)