Court Opinion

ID: 9586191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:08:08.343164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:14.615973
License: Public Domain

*721Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
In City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26 (426 SE2d 861) (1993), a majority of this Court decided to engraft onto Georgia law the “public duty doctrine,” whereby a municipality in the exercise of its police powers could be held liable for its failure to protect individuals from the criminal acts of third parties where a “special relationship” existed between the city and the crime victim. Application of the public duty doctrine was limited to police nonfeasance in regard to third-party criminal acts in the unanimous opinion rendered in Dept. of Transp. v. Brown, 267 Ga. 6 (471 SE2d 849) (1996),-which this Court subsequently followed in Hamilton v. Cannon, 267 Ga. 655 (482 SE2d 370) (1997). The language in Brown is not subject to misunderstanding nor is Hamilton subject to the limitation the majority now imposes on it. The majority is disapproving Brown and overruling Hamilton, an opinion rendered less than two years ago in which this Court rejected the very position now adopted without explanation by the majority here.
The consequences of any judicial expansion of the public duty doctrine were thoroughly thrashed out in Hamilton, which came to this Court by certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority’s simplified treatment of this complex area of the law ignores the “significant public policy ramifications” presented by any expansion of the public duty doctrine, ramifications which Hamilton and the Eleventh Circuit recognized. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F3d 1525, 1534 (11th Cir. 1996). The majority cannot even resolve the straightforward issue of what constitutes “protective police services” and fails utterly to address issues such as whether the public duty doctrine applies to acts of misfeasance as well as nonfeasance; how the doctrine can be reconciled with the pervasive legislative and constitutional provisions regarding the liability of public employees; and whether the original purpose of the doctrine remains viable so that the doctrine can be used to pierce immunity defenses, not merely to provide a judicially-created shield from liability.
Although the distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance was so important in Hamilton that the Eleventh Circuit certified a separate question about it, id., 267 Ga. at 655, the majority renders an opinion controlling this important issue by holding — without any discussion whatsoever — that the public duty doctrine applies to a case involving an allegation of misfeasance.1 Likewise, the majority does not attempt to resolve the conflicts between the public duty doctrine and either the Georgia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX, see *722also OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq. (Georgia Tort Claims Act), or the many statutes enacted by the Legislature which address the liability of public employees performing police protection activities during the course of emergency situations. E.g., OCGA § 35-1-7 (law enforcement officers); OCGA § 51-1-30 (b) (firefighters); OCGA § 31-11-8 (a) (ambulance service personnel). Prior to the majority’s holding in this case, a deputy sheriff who rendered aid to an injured person at an automobile accident scene was immune from liability for both malfeasance and nonfeasance except where gross negligence was involved. OCGA § 35-1-7. Under the public duty doctrine, however, the deputy may now be held liable for acts of misfeasance and nonfeasance whenever the plaintiff establishes that a “special relationship” existed between the parties. Such a relationship arises where (1) a municipality makes explicit assurances, through promises or actions, that it would act on behalf of an injured party; (2) the municipality knows that inaction on its part could lead to harm; and (3) the injured party justifiably and detrimentally relies on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking. City of Rome, supra. Thus, in the context of an automobile accident, the arrival of the deputy sheriff at the emergency scene would fulfill the first requirement; the presence there of an individual known by the deputy to need assistance in order to avoid injury would fulfill the second; and any act of simple negligence committed by the deputy on which the injured person relies will satisfy the third requirement.
I cannot agree with the majority’s cavalier refusal to address the “significant public policy ramifications” of its holding, ramifications which this Court considered in Hamilton before rejecting the expansion of the public duty doctrine proposed by the dissent therein. The Hamilton Court refused to apply the public duty doctrine to the many acts of misfeasance plaintiffs alleged were committed by the deputy sheriff who helped plaintiffs’ decedent, by the retired sexagenarian who was the on-site manager of the pool where the decedent collapsed, and by the pool’s uncertified lifeguard. The Hamilton Court refused to abrogate OCGA § 35-1-7, the expression of the Legislature’s will that deputy sheriffs at an emergency scene are liable solely for gross negligence, whether or not the judicially-created “special relationship” exception exists. The Hamilton Court upheld the plain and unambiguous language in Dept. of Transp. v. Brown without contorting it or interpreting it to mean the exact opposite.
Two years later, neither the dire consequences of extending this judicially-created immunity beyond its carefully-delineated borders nor the force of stare decisis raises any concern in the majority. Because the majority presents no persuasive reason for overruling Hamilton and no justification for expanding the public duty doctrine to acts of misfeasance committed by public employees who are not *723operating to protect individuals from the criminal acts of third parties, I must dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this dissent.

 The only allegation which remains against the deputy is whether he was negligent in the manner in which he reported the emergency situation to the dispatcher. Coffey v. Brooks County, 231 Ga. App. 886 (2) (500 SE2d 341) (1998).