Court Opinion

ID: 9583048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:34:25.84463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:50.521042
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
The question is whether what plaintiffs allege was negligently done by either defendant county or defendant roads superintendent or both constituted discretionary acts or ministerial acts. Only if the actions or inactions of each were ministerial could each be held liable for negligent performance of the same, due to the shields of the county’s sovereign immunity and the roads superintendent’s official immunity from liability for discretionary acts.
Plaintiffs’ position is that the defendants failed to perform their PR (public road) contract with the State DOT in accordance with its terms. The contract was entered into because DOT and the county desired the improvement and construction “of a certain facility,” and the county agreed “to do and perform all the work and labor for said purpose.” Among the contract terms was: “The work and materials shall be in strict and entire conformity with the provisions of this contract and the plans and specifications prepared (or approved) by the state highway engineer or his authorized representative the originals of which are on file in the office of the state highway engineer and which said plans and specifications are hereby made part of this agreement as fully and to the same effect as if the same had been set forth at length in the body of this agreement. This contract will be executed and constructed in accordance with the standard specifications, 1983 edition, the supplemental specifications, 1989 edition, and the supplemental specifications and special provisions included in and made a part of this contract. . . . [W]ork shall be done in *476accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia under the direct supervision and to the entire satisfaction of the Department of Transportation. The decision of the state highway engineer upon any question connected with the execution or fulfillment of this agreement and interpretation of the specifications or upon any failure or delay in the prosecution of the work by the county shall be final and conclusive.”
Among the plans and specifications were a series of survey maps showing the location of the roadbed. The original survey map called for the easterly end of Hicks Road to turn south and cross the tracks of the Norfolk Southern Railroad to join Georgia Highway 96. Because of a dispute with the railroad as to taking the paving of the road across the railroad tracks at the point provided for on the original survey plat, the county revised the paving plans to eliminate the portion of the road that crossed the tracks. As a result, the county decided to leave a portion of the road unpaved.
Plaintiffs assert that the county’s revised plans were not in conformity with the provisions of its contract with the DOT, and that this modification by the county created an inherently dangerous situation which caused Mrs. Ross’ injury. They argue that this was the result of a negligently performed duty imposed by the DOT contract, which duty was ministerial because defendants could exercise no independent judgment in deviating from the terms of the contract, and that the changes which resulted in the problems which caused the accident'were deviations from the contract.
The negligent acts which plaintiffs allege caused the accident and injuries are in their complaint. Their expert’s opinion is that the specifics complained of, i.e., the various physical and locational features of the road and the traffic signs or abuse thereof allegedly causing the accident, constituted a deviation from the standard of care in the industry.
“Whether the acts upon which liability is predicated are ministerial or discretionary is determined by the facts of the particular case.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kordares v. Gwinnett County, 220 Ga. App. 848, 851 (470 SE2d 479) (1996).
If the county and the county road superintendent could exercise judgment in making the changes in the road and traffic signs from what was in the contract, or if these aspects of the construction of the road were not covered by the contract, then the decisions were discretionary.
A ministerial act is “ ‘one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty. . . .’ [Cit.]” Guthrie v. Irons, 211 Ga. App. 502, 506 (439 SE2d 732) (1993).
A discretionary act is one for which “ ‘there [is] no procedure or *477instruction which the . . . [defendants failed to follow. . . .’ ” Kordares, supra. Discretionary acts call for “the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails examining the facts, reaching reasoned conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed.” Joyce v. Van Arsdale, 196 Ga. App. 95, 96 (395 SE2d 275) (1990). “Grounded in separation of powers concerns, the discretionary function exception reflects [the law’s] ‘wish to prevent judicial “second-guessing” of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of action in tort. [United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea &c., 467 U. S. 797, 814 (104 SC 2755, 81 LE2d 660) (1984)].’ ” Kennewick Irrigation Disk v. United States, 880 F2d 1018,1021-1022 [1] (9th Cir. 1989).
The United States Supreme Court explained in Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15, 34 (73 SC 956, 97 LE 1427) (1953), that sovereign immunity covers “the discretion of the executive or the administrator to act according to one’s [best] judgment of the best course. . . .” It also includes “determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations. Where there is room for policy judgment and decision[,] there is [room for] discretion.” Id. at 35-36.
The majority in the instant case concludes, in Division 2, that the county’s decisions to change the plans and not build a portion of the road, and to end the paving at the location in question, were “the very essence of discretionary acts.” While this may generally be the case, see Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329, 331 (264 SE2d 878) (1980), the county ceded its discretion here by contractually obligating itself to build the road in the manner specified by the DOT. Cf. Kennewick, supra at [3] (discretion of governmental actor may be removed if government incorporates specific safety standards in contract).
It follows that paving Hicks Road in conformity with the DOT contract is properly classified as a ministerial act. “ ‘ “Should the (county) decide when a street should be opened, closed, or repaired, or when a sewer should be built, it is clearly exercising legislative or judicial functions, but when it engages in the work of opening, closing, or repairing a street, or building a sewer, and is thus engaged in the physical execution of the work, it is evidently in the discharge of duties purely of a ministerial nature.” (Cit.). . .’ [Cits.]” Joyce, supra at 97.
Since the decisions to depart from the contract were made by the county, the trial court erred in granting its motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs seek to impose liability on county road superintendent Short, as well as on the county, based on assertions of negligence by them in failing to install certain warning signs and traffic signals *478indicating the end of the paved road. I agree with the conclusions in Divisions 2 and 3 of the majority opinion that decisions to use (and not use) traffic warnings and traffic signals are discretionary. They call for the exercise of personal judgment and acting in a way not specifically directed. The DOT contract does not cover this subject.
Decided March 20, 1998
Adams & Adams, Charles R. Adams III, Robert A. Butler, Nelson & Lord, Ellis M. Nelson, for appellants.
Roberts, Roberts & Ingram, Guy U Roberts, Jr., for appellees.
I cannot agree with the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s grant of Short’s motion for summary judgment in División 3. As acknowledged by the majority in that division, the evidence shows that decisions as to the paving and location of the road were made by the county and not by Short. Under the bases of liability pursued by the plaintiffs in this appeal, Short was entitled to summary judgment.
I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the grant of the county’s motion for summary judgment in Division 2 and from the reversal of the grant of Short’s motion for summary judgment in Division 3.