From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunt v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 7, 2000
537 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

A00A0529.

DECIDED: JULY 7, 2000

Wrongful death. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Newkirk.

Biggins Associates, Franklin N. Biggins, Bedelia C. Hargrove, for appellant.

Belinda E. Edwards, Yeun Soo Jo, for appellees.


Melame Hunt's son, James, died while walking to school when he was struck by a car that ran a red light at an intersection near Woodson Elementary School in Atlanta. The collision occurred at approximately 7:10 a.m., as James was on his way to participate in the school's breakfast program. At that time, the school zone speed limit sign was not yet flashing, and the school crossing guard had not yet reported for duty. Hunt sued the Atlanta Board of Education and the City of Atlanta for wrongful death, alleging that the defendants were negligent and had maintained a hazardous condition or nuisance. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board of Education on the ground that it was immune from suit. Hunt appeals, arguing that the Board's immunity does not apply to nuisance actions. We disagree and affirm.

This case is controlled by our decision in Davis v. Dublin City Board of Education. In Davis, the plaintiff's son allegedly tripped over a rug placed at the entrance to the school and fell through a cracked glass door. The plaintiff sued the Dublin City Board of Education under theories of negligence and nuisance. We held that

[s]chool districts are political subdivisions of this State. The 1991 constitutional amendment extending sovereign immunity to the state and all of its departments and agencies includes school boards, such as the City of Dublin Board of Education in the case sub judice.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id.

We noted that the essence of the plaintiff's complaint was that the school "failed to exercise sound judgment in allowing what plaintiff alleges to be a hazardous condition to exist." As the provision and maintenance of school facilities involves a discretionary act, the board of education was entitled to immunity.

Id.

Here, as in Davis, Hunt seeks to hold the Board of Education liable for negligence and nuisance arising out of the Board's performance of discretionary acts. These claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

Id.; see also Sheley v. Board of Public Educ. for the City of Savannah c., 132 Ga. App. 314, 316-317 (2) ( 208 S.E.2d 126) (1974) (city school board had immunity from nuisance claim by mother whose son drowned in septic tank on school property which was left uncovered).

Hunt contends, however, that actions against municipalities for nuisance are not barred by sovereign immunity. Although that is correct, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Atlanta Board of Education only, so the liability of the City of Atlanta for any nuisance is not at issue here. Because a school board is not a municipality, the municipal nuisance exception to sovereign immunity does not apply. It follow that Hunt may not sue the Board for nuisance or for negligence. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Board.

See Hibbs v. City of Riverdale, 267 Ga. 337 ( 478 S.E.2d 121) (1996) ("While a municipality enjoys sovereign immunity from liability for negligent acts done in the exercise of a governmental function, it may be liable for damages it causes to a third party from the creation or maintenance of a nuisance.").

See Sheley, supra at 317 (3) ("Conceding, but not deciding, that the matters alleged and proved were enough to raise a factual issue as to whether a nuisance existed . . . it would not affix any liability to the defendant school board, for its status is greatly different from that of a municipality."); see also Dollar v. Dalton Public Schools, 233 Ga. App. 827, 828 (1) (d) ( 505 S.E.2d 789) (1998) ("The school district . . . is not a municipality. The immunity which protects school districts and their officials applies equally to claims in negligence and nuisance.").

Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P.J., and Ellington, J., concur.


DECIDED JULY 7, 2000 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED JULY 19, 2000 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Hunt v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jul 7, 2000
537 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Hunt v. City of Atlanta

Case Details

Full title:HUNT v. CITY OF ATLANTA, et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jul 7, 2000

Citations

537 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
537 S.E.2d 110

Citing Cases

Gamble v. Ware Cty Board Education

The trial court, therefore, properly refused to file Gamble's tort claims against the Ware County Board of…

Dept. of Transp. v. Hillside Motors

Held: 1. During oral argument and by implication in its second enumeration of error, appellant's counsel…