Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §36-92-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 579, § 3.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2002, in subsection (d), a comma was added following "51-1-34" and a comma was deleted following "or employee".
- General Assembly in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3 does not eliminate the ability of a plaintiff to recover for his or her injuries but simply shifts the responsibility to pay damages in certain situations from the individual employee to the local government entity, which comports with the General Assembly's general authority to modify common law rights of action. DeLoach v. Elliott, 289 Ga. 319, 710 S.E.2d 763 (2011).
- Trial court did not err in granting a police officer summary judgment in the officer's individual capacity on the ground that the officer was protected from suit under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3(a) because a driver brought a claim against the officer and a city pursuant to § 36-92-3, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the city; because the driver did not enumerate that decision, it was final and, pursuant to § 36-92-3(d), provided a "complete bar" to any future suit brought by the driver against the city or the employee and involving the tortious act at issue in the case. DeLoach v. Elliott, 289 Ga. 319, 710 S.E.2d 763 (2011).
Trial court properly concluded that O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3 barred the driver and the driver's wife from recovering against the officer in the officer's official capacity and, thus, properly dismissed the officer from the case. Ray v. City of Griffin, 318 Ga. App. 426, 736 S.E.2d 110 (2012).
- Summary judgment was properly granted to the deputy as the deputy was not subject to liability for the automobile accident, and the plaintiff's claims against the deputy were barred because the term "local government entity" included sheriffs' offices; any local government officer or employee who committed a tort involving the use of a covered motor vehicle while in the performance of the employee's official duties was not subject to lawsuit or liability; and the deputy was employed as a county sheriff's deputy and the deputy was driving a county-owned vehicle en route to the sheriff's office's evidence room where the deputy worked as an evidence custodian when the accident with the plaintiff occurred. Davis v. Morrison, 344 Ga. App. 527, 810 S.E.2d 649 (2018).
Construction with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-25. - Due to the nearly identical language between O.C.G.A. §§ 36-92-3 and50-21-25, the General Assembly intended to provide immunity for municipal employees in the context of torts involving a covered motor vehicle, which is comparable to the immunity granted to state employees in the context of all torts, as long as the pertinent conditions have been satisfied; thus, by the passage of O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3, the legislature intended to foreclose all recovery against municipal employees for torts committed within the scope of employment and involving the use of a covered motor vehicle. DeLoach v. Elliott, 289 Ga. 319, 710 S.E.2d 763 (2011).
- Intent of O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3(b) is that the government entity should be substituted as a party to a suit whenever one of the entity's employees has committed "an act for which the local government entity is liable under this chapter;" the selected phrase is merely a description of when the government entity should replace the employee because if the government entity would not be liable under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1 et seq., as when the employee committed the tort using an uncovered motor vehicle, then the government entity is not "liable under this chapter" and need not be substituted. DeLoach v. Elliott, 289 Ga. 319, 710 S.E.2d 763 (2011).
- Driver's argument that a city employee was acting outside the scope of employment at the time of an accident was without merit because the employee's act of crossing a private shopping center before pulling onto the road was not unlawful under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-20(e) (disregard of a traffic signal) or O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21(b)(1) (criminal trespass); the employee was therefore immune from suit and liability based on O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3. Guice v. Brown, 334 Ga. App. 199, 778 S.E.2d 823 (2015).
Cited in Hartley v. Agnes Scott College, 295 Ga. 458, 759 S.E.2d 857 (2014).
Total Results: 6
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17
Snippet: Curney was an improper party pursuant to OCGA § 36-92-3 because this statute forecloses claims against
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Snippet: their official duties or employment.”); OCGA § 36-92-3 (a) (“Any local government officer or employee
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-16
Citation: 295 Ga. 458, 759 S.E.2d 857, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1513, 2014 WL 2695526, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 502
Snippet: argument that the immunity provided by OCGA § 36-92-3 (a) for certain torts committed by local government
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-09-12
Citation: 716 S.E.2d 144, 289 Ga. 750, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2837, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 675
Snippet: one as to the constitutionality *145 of OCGA § 36-92-3. On January 14, 2010, Fenn and Gilliam filed their
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-05-16
Citation: 710 S.E.2d 763, 289 Ga. 319, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1501, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 381
Snippet: because he is protected from suit pursuant to OCGA § 36-92-3(a). Appellant directly appeals from this order
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-02-03
Citation: 480 S.E.2d 186, 267 Ga. 485, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 355, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 36
Snippet: 36-36-21; OCGA § 36-36-32; OCGA § 36-36-54; OCGA § 36-36-92. [3] OCGA § 36-36-50 provides, in part: It is declared