In Bray v. Watkins, a decision that clarifies the jurisdictional nature of the immunity, the Georgia Supreme Court recently upheld sovereign immunity as a threshold determination that must be considered and ruled upon before a court reaches the merits of a claim.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Latoya Bray against sheriff’s lieutenant Stormie Watkins for damages that Bray claimed were caused by Watkins’ alleged failure to activate a county tornado warning system. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Watkins, finding that the public duty doctrine barred Bray’s claims.
The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, affirmed the trial court, finding that the trial court was authorized to grant summary judgment based upon the public duty doctrine without first considering sovereign immunity which had been raised in Watkins’ answer. The split decision of the Court of Appeals highlighted the distinction between the official and individual capacity claims in the case and the application of sovereign immunity to each. Judge Land, writing the opinion of the court, reasoned that because the public duty doctrine barred Bray’s official and individual capacity claims, “the issue of sovereign immunity is moot and would serve no purpose.”
In concurrence, Judge Gobeil agreed that remand was unnecessary. She opined that because Bray’s individual capacity claim would have survived sovereign immunity, which she acknowledged the trial court should have addressed, the Court was authorized to reach the merits and avoid the sovereign immunity analysis. In partial concurrence, Judge McFadden agreed that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment should be affirmed under the public duty doctrine. However, in dissent, he reasoned that the trial court should have first resolved the threshold sovereign immunity issue with respect to Bray’s official capacity claims, indicating that he “would vacate the portion of the trial court’s judgment addressing official capacity liability and would remand the case with direction that the court rule upon the issue of sovereign immunity in the first instance.”
The Georgia Supreme Court granted Bray’s petition for certiorari and held that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of summary judgment to Watkins on the basis of the public duty doctrine because the trial court should have first considered the jurisdictional question of whether sovereign immunity barred Bray’s official capacity claims.
On Jan. 8, 2024, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for resolution of the sovereign immunity issue. Importantly, the Court of Appeals noted that its opinion with respect to the individual capacity claim has not changed, stating in a footnote, “Nothing stated herein should be construed as any indication that we have changed our minds as to the merits of Bray’s claims asserted against Watkins in her individual capacity, an issue not addressed by the Supreme Court.”
While all signs point to further decisions in favor of the defense, it will be interesting to see if this leads to a resolution of the case or if the case makes its way back to Georgia’s appellate courts. Notably for local governments, sovereign immunity remains intact as a threshold jurisdictional question.