Court Opinion

ID: 9846933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:50:43.867799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:57.400311
License: Public Domain

Pope, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the public duty doctrine does not apply. However, I respectfully dissent to Division 1 for two reasons. First, in Dept. of Human Resources v. Hutchinson, 217 Ga. App. 70 (456 SE2d 642) (1995) and Ga. Military College v. Santamorena, 237 Ga. App. 58 (514 SE2d 82) (1999), upon which the majority relies in Division 1, this Court failed to recognize persuasive authority showing that the Georgia legislature intended to construe the assault and battery exception differently. And second, Hutchinson is based on flawed reasoning regarding joint proximate cause.
The principal issue in this case is whether by enacting the assault and battery exception, the legislature intended to keep sovereign immunity for all injuries that are at least partly caused by assault and battery, (1) even though a nonstate actor committed the assault or battery, and (2) regardless of whether a state official’s own independent negligence also contributed to the loss. The answer is controlled by the Georgia legislature’s intent when it enacted the Georgia Tort Claims Act in 1992 and, more specifically, their intent behind including the assault and battery exception.21
The GTCA was “in most respects” “patterned” after the Federal Tort Claims Act. Maleski, The 1992 Georgia Tort Claims Act, 9 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 431, 432, 448.22 Indeed, the FTCA contains a strikingly similar assault and battery exception to liability. See 28 USCA § 2680 (h). And, prior to when the Georgia legislature enacted the GTCA, the United States Supreme Court had already held: (1) that the assault and battery exception is inapplicable to an assault or battery committed by a federal employee acting outside of his official *400duties and analogously to someone who is not a federal employee; and (2) that therefore, the federal government can be liable for the independent negligence of an employee that contributes to the injuries caused by an assault and battery, such as in the present case. Sheridan v. United States, 487 U. S. 392 (108 SC 2449, 101 LE2d 352) (1988).23
In Sheridan, an obviously intoxicated off-duty serviceman was seen by three naval corpsmen carrying a rifle. The corpsmen took no action to subdue the drunken serviceman nor to alert the appropriate authorities that he was heavily intoxicated and armed. Later, the drunken serviceman shot and wounded the plaintiffs. The Court was asked to consider whether the plaintiffs’ claim that the corpsmen were negligent arose out of an assault and battery within the meaning of 28 USCA § 2680 (h). Id. The Court allowed the suit against the government. It noted that the case involved two tortious acts, “one of which is an assault or battery and the other of which is a mere act of negligence,” i.e., the failure of the corpsmen to take action. Id. at 398. But the Court did not simply conclude that because the tort of negligence was not covered by the exception, the plaintiffs could maintain their action. Id. at 399-400.
Rather, the Court based its conclusion that the assault and battery exception did not prevent the claim on a different theory. The Court concluded that even though the assault and battery exception can be read literally to apply to assaults committed by persons other than government employees, “the intentional tort exception is simply inapplicable to torts that fall outside the scope of” the government’s general waiver of immunity. Id. at 400.
The Court explained that when the government waived immunity, it agreed to submit to claims only for the negligent or wrongful acts of government employees “acting within the scope of [their] office or employment.” 28 USCA § 1346 (b) (1); Sheridan, 487 U. S. at 401. The assault and battery exception to this general waiver (28 USCA § 2680 (h)) thus carved out liability only for acts that would otherwise be actionable under this section, namely, those of government employees acting within the scope of their employment. Since the assaults of nonemployees, as in Muniz, were not within § 1346 (b)’s waiver, government negligence permitting them could not be *401immunized by § 2680 (h). Similarly, where a claim of negligence involved an assault by a government employee acting outside the scope of his employment, as was the case in Sheridan, § 2680 (h) did not bar the claim if the government was otherwise negligent in permitting the assault to occur. 487 U. S. at 400-402.
Not only was Sheridan the controlling interpretation of the FTCA at the time that Georgia enacted the GTCA, but the same reasoning holds true under the GTCA. OCGA § 50-21-23 provides that “[t]he state waives its sovereign immunity for the torts of state officers and employees while acting within the scope of their official duties or employment.” It follows that the exceptions to liability apply only to acts that would otherwise be actionable under this section, namely, those of state employees acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. Because the torts of nonstate employees are not within the waiver of immunity, there is no reason to immunize them with the assault and battery exception. See Sheridan.
To summarize, unless the Georgia legislature changed the wording from that found in the FTCA, it necessarily adopted the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation of the assault and battery exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity. “The [Georgia] legislature is presumed to know the condition of the law and to enact statutes with reference to it.” State v. Tiraboschi, 269 Ga. 812, 814 (504 SE2d 689) (1998). As discussed below, the only relevant difference in the wording of the GTCA does not change this result.
Despite Sheridan, in Hutchinson and Santamorena this Court construed the assault and battery exception of the GTCA to mean the opposite of the construction found in Sheridan, namely: (1) that sovereign immunity applies even though the person committing the assault and battery was not a state employee, and (2) the state is not liable for independent negligence of a state employee that contributes to the victim’s injuries where those injuries were also caused by assault and battery.
With regard to the first point, Hutchinson held that because several of the other exceptions to the waiver of immunity itemized in OCGA § 50-21-24 specifically state that they apply to state officials, but the assault and battery exception does not, the legislature must have meant that the state has immunity regardless of who commits the assault and battery. Hutchinson, 217 Ga. App. at 71. But, the FTCA has the exact same possible ambiguity. See 28 USCA § 2680. And, despite that language, the United States Supreme Court in Sheridan held that the assault and battery exception does not apply to federal employees acting outside of their official duties, and analogously to nonemployees. Again, the Supreme Court’s construction of the FTCA was the definitive construction when the Georgia legisla*402ture cloned it to make the GTCA. Therefore it can be presumed that the Georgia legislature intended the same construction of the statute found in Sheridan. Yet Hutchinson ignored the decision in Sheridan.
With regard to the second point, Santamorena held that a difference in the wording of the FTCA and the GTCA shows that the state is not liable for the independent negligence of a state employee who contributes to the victim’s losses where those losses were also caused by a third party’s assault and battery. As stated in Santamorena,
The FTCA provides that its waiver of sovereign immunity “shall not apply to . . . (a)ny claim arising out of assault (or) battery.” 28 USC § 2680 (h). Thus, the FTCA focuses not on the act causing plaintiff’s loss, but on the nature of plaintiff’s claim. ... In contrast, under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss. See Hutchinson, supra. . . . Here, “(a)ny alleged losses arising from (the State’s alleged acts and omissions) were caused by the intentional acts alleged(, i.e., the rape), not negligence. The State has no liability for such losses.” [Cit.]
(Emphasis omitted.) Santamorena, 237 Ga. App. at 60-61.
But Santamorena relies on Hutchinson for the critical part of this analysis, and Hutchinson’s reasoning is flawed.24 In Hutchinson, a juvenile who had been declared delinquent shot his foster parent after being placed in her home by the DHR. The parent sued DHR alleging that it was negligent in placing the juvenile in her home and in failing to warn her of the juvenile’s violent propensities. Hutchinson held:
[T]he exception to the waiver of immunity covers any and all losses resulting from the torts enumerated in OCGA § 50-21-24 (7), regardless of who committed them. The language used does not provide any limitation on the status of the person committing an OCGA § 50-21-24 (7) tort; it provides instead that “(t)he state shall have no liability for losses resulting from” the enumerated torts. “Loss” is extensively defined in OCGA § 50-21-22 (3) and includes “any . . . element of actual damages recoverable in actions for negligence.” The focus of the exceptions to liability in OCGA § 50-*40321-24 (7) is not on the government action taken, but upon the act that produces the loss. Here, the government action taken, placing the juvenile in Hutchinson’s home, itself produced no loss to her-, it was the juvenile’s independent tort, one specified in OCGA § 50-21-24 (7), that resulted in Hutchinson’s injury and damages.
(Emphasis supplied.) Hutchinson, 217 Ga. App. at 71-72.
The emphasized sentence contains a critical flaw in reasoning. It is well established in tort law that, “When two concurrent causes naturally operate to produce an injury, the individual tortfeasors may be sued jointly or separately, because their wrongful conduct together becomes the proximate cause of the injury.” C. Adams & C. Adams, Ga. Law of Torts, § 15-5. Thus, in Hutchinson the “government action taken” was indeed a proximate cause of the injury under the law. It, together with “the juvenile’s independent tort” “resulted in Hutchinson’s injury and damages.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 72. The sentence as written incorrectly concludes that the government action did not result in the loss. And, the indication that the government action by “itself” produced no loss has no relevant meaning. Hutchinson effectively eliminated the idea of joint proximate cause from the determination of what acts can contribute to a loss. Under its reasoning, one of two joint proximate causes of a tort does not result in the victim’s loss. “This contradicts the basic rule that the same injury can arise from more than one wrongful act.” Sheridan, 487 U. S. at 405 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). This illogical result reveals the flaw in the reasoning of Hutchinson. That flaw in reasoning is carried forward to Santamorena. In that case it was said, “ ‘(a)ny alleged losses arising from (the [s]tate’s alleged acts and omissions) were caused by the intentional acts alleged . . . , not [the state’s] negligence.” Santamorena, 237 Ga. App. at 61. Again, joint proximate cause has been lost.
Nor does the different wording of the GTCA (“losses resulting from” assault and battery) rather than the FTCA (“claims arising from” assault and battery) lead to the result stated in Hutchinson. If one of these protects the government from its own joint proximate liability and the other one does not, it is anyone’s guess which is which.
Because this Court failed to consider the relevant construction of the FTCA that existed when the GTCA was enacted, and because Hutchinson is flawed and leads to a result inconsistent with basic tort law, I would overrule it and the three cases that rely on it — Santamorena; Christensen v. State of Ga., 219 Ga. App. 10 (464 SE2d 14) (1995); and Sherin v. Dept. of Human Resources, 229 Ga. App. 621 (494 SE2d 518) (1997). Accordingly, the correct construction of the *404statute should follow Sheridan. Under that construction, the intentional tort exception found in OCGA § 50-21-24 (7) is simply inapplicable to torts that fall outside the scope of the state’s general waiver of immunity in OCGA § 50-21-23.25 I would affirm the trial court’s decision on that basis.
I am authorized to state that Judge Eldridge, Judge Barnes and Judge Phipps join in this dissent.

 The Georgia State University Law Review “Peach Sheets” for 1992, which have some legislative history on the Georgia Tort Claims Act, do not provide any guidance on the issue. Neither do the House and Senate Journals. Nor is the stated legislative intent found in OCGA § 50-21-21 helpful on this specific point.

 It is true that the article states that “there are some significant differences” between the FTCA and the GTCA-with regard to intentional torts. But the article explains that the significant differences to which it refers are the inclusion in the FTCA of a waiver of immunity for acts or omissions of the state’s investigative or law enforcement officers and the fact that the FTCA includes “misrepresentations” in the fist of torts excluded from the waiver of immunity. Id. at 448. Neither of these differences is relevant to the issue raised in this case.

 Further, in United States v. Muniz, 374 U. S. 150 (83 SC 1850, 10 LE2d 805) (1963), the Supreme Court had already held that a prisoner could bring suit against the government for damages resulting from an assault by other prisoners that prison guards had negligently permitted to happen. Although the Court in Muniz did not directly answer the question of whether the assault and battery exception to the FTCA applied to the acts of nonemployees, it did so by negative implication when it noted that the exception did apply to the intentional torts of government employees. Muniz, 374 U. S. at 163. Then the Supreme Court in Sheridan directly analyzed why that exception did not affect the result in Muniz.

 Santamorena quotes Rhoden v. Dept of Public Safety, 221 Ga. App. 844, 845 (1) (473 SE2d 537) (1996), for part of its conclusion. But Rhoden based its conclusion directly on Hutchinson. And Rhoden is easily distinguished. There, the tortfeasors were state employees, and therefore the assault and battery exception was directly applicable.

 Whether claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision or negligent training may provide the basis for liability under the GTCA for a foreseeable assault or battery by a state employee is a separate question from the one before us today. Indeed, Sheridan did not foreclose the conclusion that such claims, when they involve assault and battery by a government employee, are barred by the intentional tort exception. In fact, on remand in Sheridan, the Fourth Circuit held that, after the plaintiffs dropped certain factual assertions, its only remaining claims were in the nature of negligent supervision. Sheridan v. United States, 969 F2d 72, 75 (II) (4th Cir. 1992). And, despite the Supreme Court’s holding in Sheridan, the Fourth Circuit held that negligent supervision claims are barred by the intentional tort exception. Id.