Vann v. Finley
313 Ga. App. 153
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Parents sue Vann for wrongful death after an electrical fire in Holt and Borror's mobile home.
- Georgia Power required a reconnect inspection before powering the vacant mobile home; the Department assigned Vann to inspect.
- There is dispute whether Vann actually entered the home to inspect interior or merely inspected exterior features.
- Fire killed the occupants; conflicting evidence on whether a smoke detector was installed.
- The Department authorized power connection after Vann signed an electrical release form; the trial court denied summary judgment to Vann.
- Appellate court affirms denial of summary judgment, addressing official immunity and proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vann had official immunity for the inspection duties | Holt/Vann had ministerial duty to inspect; immunity not available. | Duties were discretionary; immunity applies. | Vann had a ministerial duty to inspect; summary judgment on immunity denied. |
| Whether Vann's alleged negligence in the inspection proximately caused the deaths | Lack of smoke detector due to negligent inspection led to deaths; jury should decide. | Proximate causation is a jury issue; may be disputed on summary judgment. | Proximate cause is for the jury; not appropriate for summary judgment. |
| Whether intervening or superseding causes absolve Vann of liability | Georgia Power and owners' negligence could break causal chain. | Intervening causes require foreseeability; jury should decide. | Jury could find intervening or concurrent causes; summary judgment on this issue denied. |
| Whether statutory immunities or local ordinances shield Vann | Immunities under Building and Housing Code, Uniform Act, IPMC, and local ordinances apply. | Statutory immunities do not clearly cover this action; constitutional limits apply. | Statutory immunities not dispositive; official immunity remains sufficient or not if ministerial duty not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App. 35 (Ga. App. 2011) (summary judgment standard for undisputed facts)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (Ga. 2010) (burden on plaintiff to prove essential element at trial)
- Weston v. Dun Transp. & Stringer, Inc., 304 Ga. App. 84 (Ga. App. 2010) (affirmative defense requires evidence of each element)
- Murphy v. Bajjani, 282 Ga. 197 (Ga. 2007) (ministerial vs discretionary duties explained)
- Cotton v. Smith, 310 Ga. App. 428 (Ga. App. 2011) (ministerial duty when policy requires specific task)
- Barnard v. Turner County, 306 Ga. App. 235 (Ga. App. 2010) (policy requiring action creates ministerial duty)
- Happoldt v. Kutscher, 256 Ga. App. 96 (Ga. App. 2002) (inspection duties can be ministerial when policy prescribes task)
- Housing Authority of City of Atlanta v. Jefferson, 223 Ga. App. 60 (Ga. App. 1996) (proximate cause questions reserved for jury)
- Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Heller, 285 Ga. 262 (Ga. 2009) (governmental employee immunity; ministerial vs discretionary analysis)
- Zwiren v. Thompson, 276 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2003) (proximate cause standard; jury question on mixed considerations)
- Glisson v. Freeman, 243 Ga. App. 92 (Ga. App. 2000) (concurrent causes; multiple negligent acts)