Spalding County v. Blanchard
This text of 620 S.E.2d 659 (Spalding County v. Blanchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this interlocutory appeal, the question is whether the plaintiff or the defendants bear the burden of showing waiver of a well-pled defense of sovereign immunity. The trial court placed the burden on the defendants. Because our case law places the burden on the plaintiff, we reverse.
Kenneth Blanchard, an inmate at the Spalding County Correctional Institute (SCCI), was assigned to a work detail. While performing manual labor, he received serious head injuries allegedly caused by the operation of a backhoe by a SCCI correctional officer. To recover damages, Blanchard sued Spalding County. Also named as defendants were the SCCI warden, the correctional officer who was operating the backhoe, and various other correctional officers, in their individual and official capacities.
Spalding County, and the warden and correctional officers in their official capacities, asserted the defense of sovereign immunity.1 Following discovery, they moved for summary judgment on the ground that Blanchard had made no showing of a waiver of sovereign immunity through the purchase of liability insurance for use of the backhoe.2 In opposition, Blanchard argued that the burden was on the defendants to show that sovereign immunity had not been waived through the purchase of insurance. The trial court entered an order which, in pertinent part, denied summary judgment to Spalding [449]*449County and to the warden and correctional officers in their official capacities on the ground that there is a material issue of fact as to whether there had been a waiver of sovereign immunity through the purchase of insurance. We granted the defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal.
As held in Ga. Dept. of Human Resources v. Poss,
To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, warrant judgment as a matter of law. A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need only show an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.6
Here, as in Poss,
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
620 S.E.2d 659, 275 Ga. App. 448, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 2778, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spalding-county-v-blanchard-gactapp-2005.