Clarke v. Freeman
2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 928, 302 Ga.App. 831, 692 S.E.2d 80 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exception to Georgia's impact rule, which allows recovery for emotional distress without a physical impact, applies when a defendant's malicious, wilful, or wanton conduct is directed toward a discrete and limited group of people, not just the public at large. Furthermore, an intervening criminal act by a third party does not absolve a defendant of liability if that criminal act was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.
Facts:
- In February 2005, Defendant Dowdell, a sergeant, was informed that inmate Brian Nichols, who was on trial for rape, was planning to overpower a deputy, take their weapon, and escape.
- Despite this specific threat, Dowdell and other defendant officers in the Fulton County Sheriff's Department failed to follow numerous department procedures to increase security or properly communicate the threat.
- On March 9, 2005, during his trial, a homemade metal weapon was discovered on Nichols, but defendants responsible for jail operations again failed to follow procedures to investigate or increase security measures.
- On the morning of March 11, 2005, multiple security breakdowns occurred: the unit manager for the floor was absent, his supervisor failed to find a replacement, and the courthouse's central security monitoring station was left unmanned by Defendants Tamer and Wright.
- Nichols overpowered a deputy, took her firearm, and proceeded to Judge Barnes's chambers.
- Inside the chambers, Nichols held Appellants Susan Christy and Gina Clarke at gunpoint.
- Christy and Clarke activated a distress alarm, but because the central control station was unmanned, no one responded.
- Nichols then left the chambers and proceeded to shoot and kill Judge Barnes and a court reporter.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Christy and Gina Clarke (Appellants) filed lawsuits in a Georgia trial court against Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman and other sheriff's department employees (Appellees).
- The complaints alleged false imprisonment, assault, and infliction of emotional distress stemming from Brian Nichols's courthouse escape.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.
- The plaintiffs, Christy and Clarke, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exception to Georgia's impact rule, which allows recovery for emotional distress without physical impact for malicious, wilful, or wanton conduct, apply when that conduct is directed at a discrete and limited group of people, such as the staff of a specific judge's chambers, rather than the public in general?
Opinions:
Majority - Doyle, Judge.
Yes. The exception to the impact rule applies when malicious, wilful, or wanton conduct is directed toward a discrete and limited group of people. Georgia's impact rule typically requires a physical impact causing physical injury to recover for emotional distress. However, an exception exists for malicious, wilful, or wanton conduct, provided that conduct is directed at the plaintiff. While conduct threatening the public in general is insufficient, the facts alleged here—including knowledge of specific threats by a prisoner in a specific courtroom and multiple security failures related to that area—could show that the defendants' conduct was directed toward the members of Judge Barnes's chamber. At the motion to dismiss stage, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the Appellants' claims fail. Similarly, the defendants can be held liable for the intentional torts committed by Nichols because his criminal acts were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants' alleged negligence, given their knowledge of his specific threats.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and potentially broadens the 'directed at' requirement for the wilful and wanton conduct exception to Georgia's impact rule. The court extends the exception beyond conduct aimed at a single individual to encompass conduct aimed at a small, identifiable group, making it easier for plaintiffs in similar situations to survive a motion to dismiss. The ruling also distinguishes prior cases involving escaped prisoners by emphasizing that when officials have knowledge of specific threats, the subsequent criminal violence may be deemed a 'foreseeable consequence' of their negligence, thus establishing proximate cause. This strengthens the duty of care owed by law enforcement to specific, identifiable potential victims when a known threat exists.
