Files v. The Housing Authority of the City of Douglas

Facts

In this case, the Plaintiff, Charles Files, was involved in a motor vehicle wreck with an employee of the Housing Authority of the City of Douglas. Files filed suit against the Housing Authority, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. The Housing Authority moved for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, and the trial court granted it. Files appealed.

Issues & Holding

The issue in this case was whether the Housing Authority was a state department, agency, or instrumentality that was entitled to sovereign immunity. 

The Court held it was not. 

Reasoning

The Georgia Constitution incorporated sovereign immunity in 1974 and the current version extends sovereign immunity to state departments and agencies. Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX; City of College Park v. Clayton County, 306 Ga. 301, 305 (2019). Over time, both the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals have interpreted what entities constitute a state department, agency, or instrumentality. The Court of Appeals pointed to several cases that have created a framework to determine whether an entity qualifies as a state department, agency, or instrumentality. 

The Court first examined Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth. In Miller, the Supreme Court focused on the legislation that created the Georgia Port Authority and the public purpose for which the authority was created. 266 Ga. 586, 587-588 (1996). In addition to those factors, the Miller Court noted the port authority’s geographic scope–specifically that the port authority had the power to govern the seaports of the state. Id. 

Likewise, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Svc. Bd., 273 Ga. 715 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a multi-county service board was a state department or agency because the law creating and defining community service boards and their public purposes, and their geographic service area, supported that conclusion. 

The Court also examined Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp., in which the Supreme Court decided that the Georgia Lottery was a state department/agency. 290 Ga. 87, 91 (2011). In Kyle, the Supreme Court found that the Georgia Lottery was governed by a board of directors appointed by the governor, its proceeds were given to the Georgia State Treasury, and it was audited by the General Assembly. Id. These facts led the Supreme Court to determine that “the purpose, function and management of the [Lottery] are indelibly intertwined with the State” and because of that, it qualified as a state instrumentality. Id.

Based on the cases the Court of Appeals reviewed, it determined that the analysis should focus on the legislation creating the entity and its public purpose. The factors to be reviewed included whether the entity’s governance and reporting were local or statewide; the entity’s geographic service area; and the entity’s economics, including how it was funded, its income generation, and how its debts and liability may impact the state.

Applying these factors to the case at hand, the Court of Appeals held that the Housing Authority did not qualify as a state department of agency.

First, the Court looked at the legislation that created the Housing Authority. The Court finds that the Housing Authority was created to build safe housing for persons of low income through public monies. O.C.G.A. § 8-3-2. The legislation also noted that housing authorities cannot exercise their power unless the governing body of a county or city declares a need. O.C.G.A. § 8-3-4. Further, the governing body of housing authorities is that of a municipality, city council, commission, or other city legislative body § 8-3-3(9). The legislation also delineates that members of the authority’s commission are to be appointed by the mayor, local governing bodies decide when the housing authority can exercise eminent domain, and housing authorities must file annual reports with a city clerk or city officer. O.C.G.A. §§ 8-3-50(a)(1) & (2), 8-3-51(a) & (e), 8-3-10, 8-3-3(5), 8-3-9. In terms of geographic reach, housing authorities operate within city bounds and housing authority projects must follow local zoning laws and ordinances.  O.C.G.A. §§ 8-3-3.

The Court noted that the Housing Authority for the City of Douglas was run by a Board of Commissioners who must be residents of Douglas. The Board provides leadership and sets housing policies in line with H.U.D. rules, approves decisions regarding housing programs, and authorizes actions of the authority’s executive director. The Court noted there is nothing in the record that showed the housing authority’s source of public funding, who is responsible for liabilities and debts, nor any information that showed whether the authority’s employees participate in any State merit or retirement system.

In contrast to the agencies in Miller and Kyle, the Court found that the City of Douglas Housing Authority was not intertwined enough with the State to be considered a state department, agency, or instrumentality. Based on the facts about the operation of the City of Douglas Housing Authority and the statute that enacted housing authorities, the housing authority was more local in nature. The authority was run by the city, its board appoints city residents, its geographical scope is limited to city boundaries, and its purpose was to serve the residents of Douglas and the county of which it was a part.

Conclusion

If you are pursuing a defendant who believes they are entitled to sovereign immunity, you should follow the analysis provided by the Court of Appeals in this case. Read the statute that created the entity. Is it one that is governed and funded by the state, or is it more local in nature? Also, look to see what the public purpose of the entity is. Are the services serving more local needs or statewide needs? What is the geographic service area? If sovereign immunity is going to apply, the Court makes clear that the entity needs to be indelibly intertwined with the State to qualify. 

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.

Citation: Files v. The Housing Authority of the City of Douglas, 2023 WL 4194717 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023)