Opinion ID: 654282
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment for William B. Smith

Text: 18 Plaintiffs seek to recover from Smith for the alleged breach of his duty to inspect and maintain the barricades and signs on county road 77. Defendants argue that Smith had no duty with respect to the erection, inspection, or maintenance of these barricades and signs and, therefore, he cannot be liable for their allegedly faulty condition. Specifically, defendants argue that Smith was appointed Road Superintendent as a reward for supporting Commissioner Brown politically, and was such 'in name only.'  36 19 Smith has held the title of Road Superintendent for Elbert County since the late 1960s. 37 Notwithstanding his title, Smith was not involved in the initial erection of the barricades and signs on county road 77 following the removal of the bridge. 38 As to the inspection and maintenance of these barricades and signs, Smith said at his deposition that he did not have any responsibility for the conditions on county road 77; his only responsibility was to act on Brown's instructions, if any. 39 Brown corroborated Smith's position, stating that Smith had no independent responsibilities; in Brown's words, Smith's only responsibilities as Road Supervisor were [t]o do what I tell him to do. 40 There is other evidence, however, that tends to indicate that Smith may have had some independent responsibilities for the inspection and maintenance of county roads. For example, Brown admitted that it was Smith's job (but not responsibility) to inspect the roads of Elbert County. 41 Smith said that part of his job was to ride the roads of the county to determine whether any maintenance was necessary. 42 Smith also said that he supervised the road crews 43 and that he assigned the crews their jobs when Brown did not. 44 Smith intimated that he did not always wait for Brown's instructions before carrying out road maintenance work. 45 We find that this evidence, when considered in light of the fact that Smith has carried the title of Road Supervisor for more than two decades, gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith had a duty to inspect and maintain the barricades and signs on county road 77. For reasons discussed in part II.B. above, Smith is not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity as to plaintiffs' claims seeking recovery for Smith's alleged breach of this duty. 46 Accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Smith.