Court Opinion

ID: 9575331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:13:03.138573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:08.343393
License: Public Domain

Benham, Justice,
dissenting.
1. I concur fully in the conclusion drawn by Justice Hunt in the dissent portion of his opinion that the city’s immunity remains intact, and in the reasoning and analysis leading to that conclusion. Accordingly, I would affirm the grant of summary judgment to the city.
2. With regard to the liability of the individual defendant, however, I believe this court should be guided by the doctrine of stare decisis and should adhere to the holding in Logue v. Wright, 260 Ga. 206 (1) (392 SE2d 235) (1990). Application of the holding in that case to the facts of this case requires the conclusion that the individual defendant’s acts were discretionary acts for which he is immune from suit. I would, therefore, affirm the grant of summary judgment to the individual defendant.
3. I also write separately to note that my position with regard to Donaldson v. Dept. of Transp., 262 Ga. 49 (414 SE2d 638) (1992), is that expressed in Justice Weltner’s dissenting opinion in that case, with which I joined.
I am authorized to state that Justice Fletcher joins in Divisions 1 and 2 of this dissent.
*136Decided March 19, 1992
Reconsideration denied April 2, 1992.
Short & Fowler, James M. Bivins, for appellants.
Alexander & Vann, William C. Sanders, for appellees.