O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-16-24 (2019)

Liability for misconduct of jailers

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sheriffs are liable for the misconduct of their jailers as they are liable for their deputies; and persons injured by a jailer have the same option in bringing an action on the jailer’s bond that they have in bringing an action on the deputy’s bond, provided that the sheriff shall not be liable for such misconduct and no claim or cause of action against the sheriff for such misconduct shall exist unless one of the following conditions exists:

(1) The sheriff personally benefited financially from the act complained of;

(2) The sheriff was personally aware of and had actual knowledge of the act complained of and had actual knowledge that the act was illegal, was contrary to law, or was the breach of a duty imposed by law and either acted to cause or failed to prevent the act complained of; or

(3) The sheriff failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence to prevent the condition or act which proximately caused the injury complained of.

History

(Orig. Code 1863, § 335; Code 1868, § 396; Code 1873, § 360; Code 1882, § 360; Civil Code 1895, § 4379; Civil Code 1910, § 4913; Code 1933, § 24-2812; Ga. L. 1980, p. 493, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 15.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Jails generally, § 42-4-1 et seq. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Liability for breach of duty arising out of official capacity. - While this section makes sheriffs liable for the misconduct of jailers, the misconduct referred to is a breach of some duty arising out of official capacity. Tate v. National Sur. Corp., 58 Ga. App. 874, 200 S.E. 314 (1938). No statute makes chief of police liable for misconduct of police officers. - Contrary to the rule as to the liability of a sheriff for the tortious con-

duct of the sheriff ’s deputies in the line of duty, there is no statute that makes a chief of police liable for the tortious conduct of the individual police officers who serves under the chief. Massey v. Perkerson, 129 Ga. App. 895, 201 S.E.2d 830 (1973). Cited in Drost v. Robinson, 194 Ga. 703, 22 S.E.2d 475 (1942); Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co. v. Mauldin, 118 Ga. App. 401, 163 S.E.2d 834 (1968); Parris v. Slaton, 131 Ga. App. 92, 205 S.E.2d 67 (1974).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Liability for acts or omissions of jailer. - Sheriff of a county is responsible for the county jail and under certain circumstances the sheriff can be liable for the acts or omissions personally of the sheriff ’s jailer with reference to the treatment of prisoners incarcerated in the jail; the failure to keep someone on duty at the

jail at all times could result in liability based on neglect. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-14. Misconduct of jailers for which sheriffs are liable is breach of some duty arising out of official capacity. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-14.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 70 Am. Jur. 2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables, § 45 et seq. C.J.S. - 80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables, § 54.

ALR. - Liability for death of or injury to prisoner, 46 ALR 94; 50 ALR 268; 61 ALR 569.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2022 · leading case: Gwinnett Cnty. v. Yates, 458 S.E.2d 791 (Ga. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gwinnett Cnty. v. Yates, 458 S.E.2d 791 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 15-16-24. In contrast, the clerk of superior court does not post a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the clerk's deputies' duties; rather, the clerk can require the deputy clerk to post a bond binding the deputy for faithful performance.”
Keith Ex Rel. Est. of Cook v. DeKalb Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034 (11th Cir. 2014). “Count Two incorporates the previous 177 paragraphs of the amended complaint, including Count One, and seeks judgment against the Sheriff under O.C.G.A. § 15-16-24 36 for the “misconduct of guards, sheriffs deputies, and jailers under his supervision,” and for “failing] to…”
Manders v. Lee, 285 F.3d 983 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “In addition, while O.C.G.A. § 15-16-24 provides that “[s]heriffs are liable for the misconduct of their jailers as they are hable for their deputies,” that same statute limits a sheriffs liability for a jailer’s misconduct to three instances: (1) the sheriff personally…”
Hill v. Watkins, 627 S.E.2d 3 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 15-16-24. Thus, of the four elected constitutional county officers (the other three are the clerk of the superior court, the judge of the probate court, and the tax official, 1983 Ga.”
Jackson v. Payne, 757 S.E.2d 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Payne’s argument that liability can be imposed on Sheriff Jackson based upon OCGA § 15-16-24 (2) is without merit.”
Hill v. Clayton Cnty. Georgia (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “2000), and O.C.G.A. §§ 15-16-24, 15-16-10)). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against government officials when they act as “arms of the State.”
Theodore \Ted\" Jackson (2014). “2 Payne’s argument that liability can be imposed on Sheriff Jackson based upon OCGA § 15-16-24 (2) is without merit. 7”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.