Roper v. Greenway
294 Ga. 112
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Greenway was hospitalized; two dogs remained at his home and were euthanized after Deputy Roper gave him an Owner Release Form.
- Greenway could not read the form at that time; he understood the dogs would go to the Humane Society and were euthanized before he recovered.
- Greenway sued Roper, the hospital, the Sheriff, and the animal shelter; the trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants.
- Court of Appeals reversed as to Roper, holding the discretionary act was protected by official immunity, but the ministerial act of handing the form could be negligent.
- Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether Roper's conduct was protected; decision remanded for consistent proceedings.
- The Court holds the acts cannot be split for immunity purposes; the discretionary act includes the decision and execution, and no ministerial duty was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official immunity applies to Roper's discretionary act | Greenway: immunity shields only discretionary acts, not execution. | Roper: discretionary act qualifies for immunity; acting within policy and discretion. | Discretionary act protected; immunity does not cover negligent ministerial execution alone. |
| Whether the act of handing the form to Greenway was ministerial | Greenway: execution was ministerial, requiring no discretion. | Roper's act cannot be separated from its discretionary decision; no ministerial duty proven. | Act cannot be bifurcated to create ministerial duty; no ministerial breach shown. |
| Whether malice could defeat official immunity | Greenway argued alleged malicious statements create genuine issues for malice. | Malice may defeat immunity only if proven for the discretionary act. | Malice issues remain possible but remanded for proper consideration; summary judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Hanse, 281 Ga. 133 (Ga. 2006) (immunity framework for discretionary acts)
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (Ga. 2009) (discretionary act involves personal deliberation and judgment)
- Hicks v. McGee, 289 Ga. 573 (Ga. 2011) (ministerial duties require clear, definite actionable steps)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (Ga. 2001) (official immunity limits and malice considerations)