Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 294 Ga. 220

Stevenson sued the City of Doraville and DPD Officer Mahar for negligence in responding to a disabled vehicle on Interstate 285, alleging misfeasance and causation of a multivehicle collision.
Mahar activated his vehicle’s blue emergency lights and attempted to reach the road hazard but could not reach Stevenson due to traffic; he called dispatch for assistance.
Stevenson remained in his stalled vehicle with flashers on, hoping for aid, while Mahar sought additional help from dispatch.
A tractor-trailer and other vehicles collided with Stevenson after delays, with Zastrow stating he did not see flashing lights and that unsafe lane changes contributed to the crash.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Mahar and the City, relying on official immunity and the public duty doctrine; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Thompson holds the public duty doctrine does not bar misfeasance claims and affirms the decision, while denying a special-duty exception based on Rome v. Jordan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the public duty doctrine insulate the City from liability for misfeasance by a police officer?	Stevenson argues misfeasance falls outside the doctrine.	City contends doctrine applies only to nonfeasance.	No insulation for misfeasance claims; doctrine does not bar misfeasance.
Is there factual support for Stevenson’s misfeasance claims against Mahar?	Stevenson asserts three misfeasance theories (help hinder, lights diverted traffic, and pre-accident lane position).	Record lacks admissible evidence of active negligence.	No admissible evidence supports misfeasance claims.
Can Stevenson establish a special duty under City of Rome to create liability in the absence of a special relationship?	Stevenson seeks a Rome-style special-duty exception.	No explicit assurance or justifiable reliance established; Rome exception rejected.	Special relationship not shown; Rome-based special-duty exception rejected.

City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26 (1993) (public duty doctrine limits liability to police nonfeasance; special relationship test later refined)
Rowe v. Coffey, 270 Ga. 715 (1999) (public duty doctrine narrowed to nonfeasance cases; misfeasance not precluded (majority view))
Tilley v. City of Hapeville, 218 Ga. App. 39 (1995) (public duty doctrine applied where officer failed to warn or direct motorists away from danger)
Daley v. Clark, 282 Ga. App. 235 (2006) (illustrates limits of public duty doctrine regarding active hindrance by police)