Court Opinion

ID: 9806811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:29:53.551983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:12:48.920458
License: Public Domain

*724McFADDEN, Judge,
concurring fully and specially.
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to explain that this case properly falls into the line of cases that have “recognized that the execution of a specific task is characterized as ministerial even though the manner in which it is accomplished is left to the employee’s discretion.” Golden v. Vickery, 285 Ga. App. 216, 218 (645 SE2d 695) (2007) (citations and punctuation omitted). A jury would be authorized to conclude that the unwritten policy at issue required Cooley to inspect the equipment not only to confirm that it was operational but also for safety and that Cooley’s admitted failure to inspect for safety was a failure to execute that ministerial duty.