Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-33-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 33 information not found

ARTICLE 3 COUNCIL OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES

36-33-4. Personal liability of councilmembers and other municipal officers.

Members of the council and other officers of a municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages as the result of any official act of such officers if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly, or without authority of law.

(Civil Code 1895, § 752; Civil Code 1910, § 901; Code 1933, § 69-208.)

History of section.

- This Code section is derived from the decision in Pruden v. Love, 67 Ga. 190 (1881).

Cross references.

- False arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, Ch. 7, T. 51.

Law reviews.

- For article, "Cities and Towns in Georgia: A Distinction With a Difference?," see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 385 (1963). For article, "Georgia Local Government Officers: Rights for Their Wrongs," see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 747 (1979). For article discussing origin and construction of Georgia law of personal liability for municipal officials, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 239 (1980). For article, "Individual Liability in Georgia Local Government Law: The Haunting Hiatus of Hennessy," see 40 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1988). For article, "Local Government Tort Liability: the Summer of '92," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 405 (1993). For note discussing governmental immunity from tort liability in Georgia, see 5 Ga. St. B.J. 494 (1969).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

There are two conditions for the liability of commissions under this section, namely for the defendants to have acted contrary to a nondiscretionary, ministerial duty, and to have acted with malice. City of Hawkinsville v. Wilson & Wilson, Inc., 231 Ga. 110, 200 S.E.2d 262 (1973) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4).

Effect of the provisions of former Code 1933, § 69-208 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4) was to create liability against municipal officers under such conditions when the officers commit a tort, which as provided in former Code 1933, § 105-101 (see O.C.G.A. § 51-1-1) was the unlawful violation of a private legal right. Davis v. Johnson, 92 Ga. App. 858, 90 S.E.2d 426 (1955).

Malice defined.

- Malice may consist in a general disregard of the right consideration of mankind, directed by chance against the individual injured. Kitchens v. Jefferson County, 85 Ga. App. 902, 70 S.E.2d 527 (1952).

Special damages required

- When plaintiff city council member failed to plead special damages in action against city manager and mayor's secretary for invasion of privacy based on taping of plaintiff's phone conversation with mayor, plaintiff failed to establish that plaintiff was entitled to proceed under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4. Kennedy v. Johnson, 205 Ga. App. 220, 421 S.E.2d 746, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 900, 421 S.E.2d 746 (1992).

General damages recoverable.

- Claim under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4 is essentially a tort action, not one based on a regulatory restriction; thus, general as well as compensatory damages may be recovered. City of Buford v. Ward, 212 Ga. App. 752, 443 S.E.2d 279 (1994).

Claim based on actions taken without authority of law.

- Plaintiff businessman, who was refused a certificate of occupancy for a garden center based on the inadequacy of a deceleration/acceleration lane, proved a cause of action against city officials under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4 since the policy regarding construction of the lane was not based on an ordinance setting forth guidelines or specific factors sufficient to apprise citizens of what to expect and, thus, actions taken pursuant to such policy were without authority of law; further, plaintiff's testimony that plaintiff expended $2,800 to extend the lane beyond the length required for DOT approval was sufficient to show special damages. City of Buford v. Ward, 212 Ga. App. 752, 443 S.E.2d 279 (1994).

Trial court erred in finding that a mayor was entitled to official immunity in city employees' action for wrongful termination because a question of fact remained as to whether the mayor acted without authority of law by failing to comply with the city's resolution requiring the mayor to get city council approval prior to any termination. Owens v. City of Greenville, 290 Ga. 557, 722 S.E.2d 755 (2012).

Immunity from liability.

- Public official who fails to perform purely ministerial duties required by law is subject to an action for damages by one who is injured by the official's omission; however, when an officer is invested with discretion and is empowered to exercise the officer's judgment in matters brought before the officer, the officer is sometimes called a quasi-judicial officer, and when so acting the officer is usually given immunity from liability to persons who may be injured as a result of an erroneous decision, provided the acts complained of are done within the scope of the officer's authority, and without wilfulness, malice, or corruption. McDay v. City of Atlanta, 204 Ga. App. 621, 420 S.E.2d 75, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 420 S.E.2d 75 (1992).

Police officer's conduct in arresting plaintiff, while unprofessional, was not willful, fraudulent, corrupt, or malicious; therefore, the officer enjoyed limited immunity. Corporate Prop. Investors v. Milon, 249 Ga. App. 699, 549 S.E.2d 157 (2001).

City manager had official immunity in a defamation case under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX(d) and O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4 since: (1) the city finance director did not show that a statement the city manager made to the media regarding the city manager's concerns in the city finance director's department was outside the scope of the city manager's authority; (2) the city manager did not disclose anything to the city finance director's prospective employer that the prospective employer did not obtain through a Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., request; and (3) there was no policy that prohibited the city manager from verbally responding in conjunction with the city manager's Open Records Act response. Smith v. Lott, 317 Ga. App. 37, 730 S.E.2d 663 (2012).

Appellate court erred by affirming the grant of the individual defendants' motion to dismiss in a personal injury suit involving a pedestrian falling at a high school because whether official immunity barred the action was a fact-specific inquiry that had not been definitively answered since limited discovery had been undertaken. Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773, 755 S.E.2d 796 (2014).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the mayor and the council member defendants based on governmental liability because the remedies provided under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4 could not be judicially grafted onto the Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, which does not mention that code section, nor provides for individual liability. Rintoul v. Tolbert, 341 Ga. App. 688, 802 S.E.2d 56 (2017).

Individual not liable if sued in official capacity.

- Notwithstanding the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4, a drinking water commissioner could not be held personally liable for requiring a water customer to extend a water main because the commissioner was not sued in the commissioner's individual capacity. The city could be held liable for the commissioner's actions because, although the actions were unauthorized, the actions were within the scope of the commissioner's employment. City of Atlanta v. Harbor Grove Apts., LLC, 308 Ga. App. 57, 706 S.E.2d 722 (2011).

Merely styling a suit against a public officer as one brought against the officer personally does not deprive the officer of any immunity to which the officer might otherwise be entitled for the officer's official acts. McDay v. City of Atlanta, 204 Ga. App. 621, 420 S.E.2d 75, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 420 S.E.2d 75 (1992).

Evidence insufficient to lift immunity.

- Trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of police chief when the record was devoid of any conduct by the chief which could remotely be construed as being sufficient to lift the shield that protects public officers acting colore officii; therefore the plaintiff was not allowed to recover for the plaintiff's spouse's suicide while in police custody. McDay v. City of Atlanta, 204 Ga. App. 621, 420 S.E.2d 75, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 420 S.E.2d 75 (1992).

Evidence did not support plaintiff's claim of conspiracy against the plaintiff by municipal officials based upon the city's issuance of citations for an electrical code violation and for having a derelict car on the plaintiff's premises. Brown v. City of Chamblee, 211 Ga. App. 45, 438 S.E.2d 396 (1993).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to police officer on the arrested individual's claims against the officer arising out of the individual's arrest for criminal trespass as the officer was performing a discretionary duty at the time of the arrest and no showing was made that the officer acted maliciously or with an intent to injure; accordingly, the officer was entitled to official immunity from liability. Reese v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. App. 761, 583 S.E.2d 584 (2003).

It is a jury question as to whether acts of a city manager in breaching a contract to perform a ministerial duty falls within provisions of O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4. City of Douglas v. Johnson, 157 Ga. App. 618, 278 S.E.2d 160 (1981).

Nonliability for abatement of nuisance.

- When the council of a municipal corporation, in the exercise of the municipality's police powers, and after due notice, declare a building to be a nuisance, and require the building to be torn down, the council would not be liable as individuals to the owner for damages, unless the council acted maliciously, oppressively, corruptly, or without authority of law. Pruden v. Love, 67 Ga. 190 (1881).

Claim of nuisance created by failure to maintain and repair sewer lines.

- Plaintiff's assertion that the failure of the city to properly maintain and identify the repairs needed on the sewer lines was a nuisance did not give rise to a right of action in nuisance as to plaintiffs. Rea v. Bunce, 179 Ga. App. 628, 347 S.E.2d 676 (1986), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 484 U.S. 998, 108 S. Ct. 685, 98 L. Ed. 2d 638 (1988).

Applicability to council member presiding in police court.

- This section has no application to acts of a member of a town council when the member is presiding in a police court. Calhoun v. Little, 106 Ga. 336, 32 S.E. 86 (1898) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4).

Revocation of permit.

- Provisions of this section as to oppressive, malicious, corrupt, and unlawful acts could not be applied to the acts of a mayor when the petition did not allege that the mayor by force, threats, or any means whatsoever prevented the plaintiff from conducting plaintiff's business or exercising the privilege and license, or canceled or revoked the permit, and only alleged that the mayor notified the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff's permit was void and that the plaintiff could not operate an abattoir. Davis v. Johnson, 92 Ga. App. 858, 90 S.E.2d 426 (1955) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4).

Cited in Foster v. Crowder, 117 Ga. App. 568, 161 S.E.2d 364 (1968); Koehler v. Massell, 229 Ga. 359, 191 S.E.2d 830 (1972); Copeland v. Young, 133 Ga. App. 54, 209 S.E.2d 719 (1974); Wilson v. Strange, 235 Ga. 156, 219 S.E.2d 88 (1975); Pitts v. City of Macon, 134 Ga. App. 467, 214 S.E.2d 720 (1975); Knight v. Troup County Bd. of Educ., 144 Ga. App. 634, 242 S.E.2d 263 (1978); Gaskins v. Hand, 219 Ga. App. 823, 466 S.E.2d 688 (1996); Oglethorpe Dev. Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 271 Ga. 173, 516 S.E.2d 531 (1999).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, §§ 133, 243 et seq. 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §§ 304, 336.

ALR.

- Personal liability of public official for personal injury on highway, 40 A.L.R. 39; 57 A.L.R. 1037.

Personal liability of municipal officer or employee for negligence in performance of duty, 40 A.L.R. 1358; 53 A.L.R. 381.

Liability of municipal officers for diversion of money from one fund to another, 96 A.L.R. 664.

Civil liability of law enforcement officers for malicious prosecution, 28 A.L.R.2d 646; 81 A.L.R.4th 1031.

Personal liability of policeman, sheriff, or other peace officer, or bond, for negligently causing personal injury or death, 60 A.L.R.2d 873.

Civil liability of school officials for malicious prosecution, 66 A.L.R.2d 749.

Liability for personal injury or damage from operation of fire department vehicle, 82 A.L.R.2d 312.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 428 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 21, 1994 | 452 S.E.2d 476, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3818

...icer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority. See Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. at 331; OCGA § 36-33-4; Sentell, Individual Liability in Georgia Local Government Law: The Haunting Hiatus of Hennessy, 40 Mercer L....
Copy

Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 67 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 10, 2014 | 755 S.E.2d 796, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 452

Copy

Owens v. City of Greenville, 290 Ga. 557 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 27, 2012 | 722 S.E.2d 755, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 565

...icer or employee may be personally liable for his negligent ministerial acts, he may not be held liable for his discretionary acts unless such acts are wilful, wanton, or outside the scope of his authority. See Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. at 331; OCGA § 36-33-4; Sentell, Individual Liability in *561Georgia Local Government Law: The Haunting Hiatus of Hennessy, 40 Mercer L....
...Statutory law provides, however: “Members of the council and other officers of a municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages as the result of any official act of such officers if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly, or without authority of law.” OCGA § 36-33-4. In this case, Owens and Williams have maintained throughout that Bray unilaterally terminated them from their position without authority of law because the City passed a 2007 resolution requiring that the mayor get City Council approval prior to any such termination. At the very least, a question of fact remains whether Bray acted “without authority of law” by failing to comply with this directive. As such, he was not entitled to summary judgment on this point pursuant to official immunity. OCGA § 36-33-4. 4....
Copy

Oglethorpe Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Coleman, 516 S.E.2d 531 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 1999 | 271 Ga. 173, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2069

...Even assuming, arguendo, that Coleman had authority to set the Commissioners' agenda, such act constitutes an official act to which immunity would apply. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (d); OCGA § 36-33-1. Oglethorpe has neither alleged nor presented evidence in support of a waiver of immunity. See OCGA § 36-33-4 (officer of municipal corporation shall be personally liable to one who sustains special damages as the result of an official act of such officer if done oppressively, maliciously, corruptly or without authority of law); Gilbert v....
Copy

Powell v. City of Snellville, 563 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 2002).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 28, 2002 | 275 Ga. 207, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1500

...s refusal to re-zone the property to what Ms. Powell deemed a constitutional classification. She also sought damages under 42 USC § 1983 for alleged intentional and malicious interference with her contractual and property rights, damages under OCGA § 36-33-4, and a declaratory judgment that the Atlanta Regional Commission's interpretation of a rule promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources was unconstitutional....
Copy

Joiner v. Glenn, 702 S.E.2d 194 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 8, 2010 | 288 Ga. 208, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3583, 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 709

...Glenn filed suit against Joiner, the Mayor of Jefferson, Georgia, the members of the city council, and the city manager, alleging defendants violated his liberty interests because they denied him a name-clearing hearing after he was terminated as chief of police. [1] Glenn sought damages under OCGA § 36-33-4 [2] and the due process clause of the Georgia Constitution, asserting the refusal to afford a name-clearing hearing was "without authority of law." Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, pointing out that a procedural remedy—the...
...All the Justices concur, except HUNSTEIN, C.J., CARLEY, P.J., and MELTON, J., who dissent. HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice, dissenting. I must respectfully dissent because the "adequate state remedy" doctrine adopted by the majority is not applicable to damages actions brought under OCGA § 36-33-4. I would therefore hold that, because Glenn has alleged a violation of appellants' duty to conduct a name clearing hearing, and because such violation is actionable under OCGA § 36-33-4, the trial court properly denied appellants' motion for judgment on the pleadings....
...process violation compels its conclusion that his claims are precluded by the adequate state law doctrine. However, Glenn's complaint on its face does not assert a cause of action for a due process violation. Rather, Count 1 seeks damages under OCGA § 36-33-4 for the tort of official misconduct, and Count 2 seeks the imposition of punitive damages....
...See Brewer, supra, 235 Ga.App. at 316(3), 509 S.E.2d 378. The alleged dereliction of that duty, i.e., appellants' denial of Glenn's requests for a hearing, constitutes the alleged "official act ... done ... without authority of law" made actionable under OCGA § 36-33-4. See City of Buford v. Ward, 212 Ga.App. 752, 755(1), 443 S.E.2d 279 (1994). Properly viewed as seeking recovery not for a constitutional violation but rather under OCGA § 36-33-4 for the "`fail[ure] to perform [a] purely ministerial dut[y] required by law,'" (citations omitted) Gaskins v....
...hearing does not ripen into a procedural due process violation unless the state `refuses to make available a means to remedy the deprivation.' [Cit.]"). Indeed, my research has revealed no case in which the adequate state remedy doctrine has been held to bar a tort action under OCGA § 36-33-4....
...ve rise to claims both for mandamus relief and for damages, thus affirmatively rejecting the notion that the availability of mandamus to compel performance of a ministerial duty (i.e., an "adequate state remedy") precludes damages actions under OCGA § 36-33-4 for the failure to perform such duty. See City of Hawkinsville v. Wilson & Wilson, Inc., 231 Ga. 110, 200 S.E.2d 262 (1973) (affirming grant of mandamus requiring issuance of business license and holding that plaintiff's additional claim for damages under OCGA § 36-33-4 could proceed). In addition, the very recognition of damages claims under OCGA § 36-33-4 for a city official's failure to perform ministerial duties, see Gilbert v....
...damus, see OCGA § 9-6-20 (mandamus may issue to compel performance of official duties); Acree v. Walls, 240 Ga. 778(1), 243 S.E.2d 489 (1978) (mandamus will lie to compel hearing required by law), applying the adequate state remedy doctrine to OCGA § 36-33-4 actions would render the statute largely meaningless to the extent it authorizes damages actions for an official's breach of a ministerial duty. *198 In sum, accepting Glenn's allegations as true, see Pressley v. Maxwell, 242 Ga. 360, 249 S.E.2d 49 (1978) (standard for assessing motion for judgment on the pleadings), I would hold that Glenn has stated a cause of action under OCGA § 36-33-4 which is not precluded under the adequate state remedy doctrine....
...ively, maliciously, corruptly, or without authority of law." [3] The complaint does not mention the violation of a "ministerial duty" and even if it did, that duty is the duty to provide a name-clearing hearing. [4] Because I would find Glenn's OCGA § 36-33-4 claim viable, I must also address briefly the other issue on which we granted interlocutory review, namely, whether OCGA § 36-33-4 as it is sought to be applied here is invalid as exceeding the limited waiver of official immunity set forth in Article I, Section II, Paragraph IX(d) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983....
...ilure to perform, their ministerial functions and... for injuries and damages if they act with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functions." Id. Here, it is alleged that appellants violated OCGA § 36-33-4 by refusing to hold a name clearing hearing "without authority of law." Given that Art....
...mposition of liability here even without a finding of oppressiveness, malice, or corruption would not run afoul of the constitutional waiver of immunity. See also Oglethorpe Dev. Group v. Coleman, 271 Ga. 173, 516 S.E.2d 531 (1999) (recognizing OCGA § 36-33-4 as consonant with Art....