*1 91 ex- handwriting hire a Anthony motion for funds Tyrone Norris’ (3) (a). pert. charging erred the trial court Defendant Paris contends a already formed is entering conspiracy a person into
jury “[a] conspirators before and after the other acts done party all He reasons enterprise.” furtherance entry into the a “signifies that improperly “after” in this instruction the word fact is both a co- accessory as entering the crime an person This contention conspirator party to the crime.” merit. is an accurate statement above-quoted instruction (5) 105), 766,
law, State, Watkins liability conspirator way subject as no confuses the State, Drane v. liability abettor. See aider and distinct 27). fact, court (4), n. 4 the trial when he liability as an aider abettor even mention conspirator. structed the as to Blackburn, Judgments Andrews and January 199 denied Reconsideration A95A2109). (case Moses, appellant Michael J. no. for (case A95A2110). II, John appellant J. Pilcher for no. (case A95A2111). Shook, Susan E. S. appellant for no. Malone, Durden, A. Anne L. Assis- Attorney, Richard District Attorney, tant appellee. District
A95A2032. WRIGHT v. ASHE et al.
Blackburn, summary Eva Loletta entered Wright appeals judgment her claim of her minor son that she against death brought County Dis- Clayton various officials School morning trict. son was killed in an automobile one accident motion, Judge skipping Upon while school. William summary County Superior granted Alexander the Fulton Court judgment sovereign immu- against Wright’s grounds claim on the decision, nity adopt- cause. We affirm the trial court’s large judgment measure the entered granting order by Judge Alexander which follows. School District
During summer of offered program Clayton High its summer school at North School. Defendant James Clayton High Lancaster was the of North Ashe, principal, School. Defendant Richard an assistant oversaw the day-to-day operations program. of the summer school Winnie Anderson and Patricia Hunt were both teachers who taught during the 1990 summer school session. *2 son,
Plaintiff’s Daniel James Wright was enrolled as a student program. Wright summer school was scheduled to attend all three session, two-week summer school sessions. During the first An- derson Wright skipped teacher. class several times dur- ing session, result, first two-week and as a failing grade received a for the first session. Plaintiff was Wright skipped that aware had class during several times the first session. grounded She even him learning many absences. July
On day the fourth of the second summer school session, Wright, Wilson, Jr., James and Charles Gossett decided to campus leave the school during a scheduled class break in violation of the school Gossett drove them all in his Burger King truck to for hamburgers. Upon learning that Burger King was serving not hamburgers early in the morning, Gossett began driving errati- cally in lot, the restaurant parking performing three “donuts.” He then drove down a side street approximately mph 65-70 and lost control of his vehicle. The truck struck Wright a tree and was killed. Gossett was later convicted of vehicular homicide.
Plaintiff filed 18, 1994, the instant action on March defendants for the wrongful death of her son. alleges Plaintiff that defendants negligently acted recklessly in failing to enforce the policies of Clayton County School Board which resulted Wright. Thereafter, death of 29, 1994, August the defendants filed the instant motion judgment.
Defendants first contend that plaintiff as a matter of law under the immunity. support official theory, this defendants correctly point employees out that school entitled to official from their actions those actions are within the scope of employment, wilfulness, malice, corruption. Irons, See Guthrie v. App. 502, However, public official perform
who purely fails to duty ministerial is subject to an action damages by one who injured by his omission. Id. Defendants assert that gravamen plaintiff’s complaint is that the defend- ants failed to adequately supervise Wright companions, and his allowing skip them to class and campus. leave the school contend that it is well established in law that supervise by school discretionary, officials is Id. at Therefore, 506. argue defendants the doctrine of official immu- law. Id. at a matter of this suit as nity bars case, board the school however, Plaintiff, contends that not that students which stated policies and rules established if the to be notified parents premises, the school to leave use of mo class, the students’ restricted failed to attend students these carrying out of that the alleges Plaintiff campus. vehicles on tor duty and one which policies was alleges that defendants perform. failed to support of this not Arsdale, App. 95 Joyce v. Van relies on proposition, denied, App. 908 275) (1990), cert. acts were is whether the defendants’ the issue In the instant minis- immunity, or protected by official discretionary and therefore the determi- by official and not shielded terial depends on discretionary or ministerial action is of whether an nation of, complained specific actions the character of the case-by-case basis. See made on a job, and is to be nature of the supra at 504. protect the defendants failed argues that Plaintiff prevent- policies and not enforcing the school Wright by properly Plaintiff al- during the class break. leaving campus him policies regarding County School Board leges *3 disregarded completely place in but were were that summer matters However, the defend- by administration and the teachers. both the the school officials contrary which shows that produced evidence ants the attempting to enforce were policies re- the school board’s
Additionally, plaintiff argues in to those carry ministerial acts similar quired the defendants to out erecting the Joyce, supra, where the court determined that that certain county made the determination barricades nature, in and not bridges were to be closed that al- plaintiff contends discretionary. Relying argument, on this discretionary by the school creating policies the was a though principals policies by the board, simple implementation the however, was argument, in This was ministerial nature. and teachers Guthrie, supra. in rejected and considered supra, duty in in the ministerial the court As stated task faced Joyce, supra, “is not remotely comparable to the difficult and supervising teacher in this case by the school change in especially during controlling the activities of location classes, moving from one large numbers of students are when the Guthrie, such, finds that this Court supra at 506. As to another.” is meritless. plaintiff’s argument making decisions consistently have courts held is a discretion- supervise children means used to school
regarding the Guthrie, supra; ary principal. school See see also function of the (390 McDowell, 605) (1990). App. Lewis v. 194 Ga. SE2d Ad- monitor, ditionally, supervise, imposed task teachers to discretionary has also held to be a action and control students been Guthrie, by is See (441 Howell, v. supra; App. see also Doe 212 Ga. SE2d (1994); 147) (1993). Wynn, App. Parker v. such, record, As review this case
acts they protection by are entitled to the afforded the doctrine of official alternative,
In defendants contend that agrees intervening under cause. This Court the defendants’ contentions. legal there are two distinct theories involved in the question proximate causation: direct and cause. See Wallace Albany, 746) (1993) Club Boys App. (Birdsong, dissenting). cause, In regard proximate question is not whether injury, conduct caused the whether the causal connection between the defendants’ injury resulting therefrom is too to be basis of a recov- ery. Id. at negligent, 539-540. Even where the defendant other effect, preponderate injurious circumstances such dam- ages generally contingent deemed justify too remote and a re- covery. questions Id. Such of negligence, lack ordinary safety usually proper care for one’s own adjudication and instead by except must be resolved plain Hills, palpable North v. cases. See Toco directly victim’s caused Gossett, party. Generally, a third crimi- party, nal curred, a third injury without which the would not oc- have
will also be treated as the breaking the causal connection between the defendants’ negligence and the unless the act was foreseeable consequence Wallace, supra the defendants’ conduct. See only order to recover must show that *4 students, were the negligent supervision in their negligence Wright’s injuries. of cause 250) See Wanless v. Corp., Winner’s Ga. App. (1986). “If the injuries complained naturally of did di- not flow rectly wrongful defendant, from the act or omission attributed therefrom, reasonably expected or could not have been to result or therefrom, interposition would not have resulted but from the independent some unforeseen such antecedent defendant’s omission, any, if would not be the cause Additionally, injury complained if complained of.” Id. result anticipated probable as the could be will to be either a such act be deemed alleged negligence, then remote or not cause of the sustained. light viewing the facts the instant negligent plaintiff, the defendants were
favorable to the even such conduct on supervision monitoring give more than rise to occasion part nothing the defendants circum- Wright’s injuries possible. Other unforeseeable which made stances, Gossett, preponder- including v. Richmond injury Wright. See Thurmond ated 392) Ed., 437, 440 Bd. best, was, appears it 51-12-8; See OCGA 51-12-9. cause of the sustained. §§ issues of mate- genuine there are no summary judgment entitled rial fact and that the defendants are a matter under both the doctrine of official of law (c). cause. See OCGA 9-11-56 tervening § J., J., J., Birdsong, Pope, P. P. Judgment Beasley, C. McMurray, Andrews, Johnson, Ruffin, P. Smith and dissents. Presiding Judge, dissenting.
McMurray, I respectfully dissent I do not believe the defendants are insu- I lated based doctrine of official also on the genuine believe of material fact remain as to issue of issues proximate cause. Brakefield,
Gary appellant. Candler, Lones, Sams, appel- Weekes & L. M. Gary Laura lees.
A95A2081. STEPHENSON v. THE STATE.
(469 SE2d
Ruffin, Stephenson, Rider, Humphries, Charles Renee Matthew Hyatt Michael burglary. Following were indicted on two counts trial, appeals He his Stephenson was convicted on counts. both for new trial. For judgment of conviction and the denial motion follow, reasons we affirm.