 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holcomb v. Walden11/19/2004
.App. 32, 421 S.E.2d 306 (1992); Ermutlu v. McCorkle, 203 Ga.App. 335, 336-337, 416 S.E.2d 792 (1992); Associated Health Systems v. Jones, 185 Ga.App. 798, 801-802, 366 S.E.2d 147 (1988). "The passing encounter of a police officer with a third person" where the officer may or may not determine that probable cause exists to make an arrest, does not give rise to the type of "special relation" contemplated in § 315(a). Landis, supra at 704, 445 S.E.2d 264.
Accordingly, because the officer's duty was to the public and not to the individual plaintiffs in this case, the "public duty doctrine" controls the facts of this case. See City of Rome, supra (city and police not liable for failure to respond to emergency call); Tilley v. City of Hapeville, 218 Ga.App. 39, 459 S.E.2d 567 (1995) (city and officer owed no duty to individual motorist who was injured when his car struck an abandoned car on the interstate); Landis, supra (officer who failed to stop noticeably intoxicated motorist owed no duty to plaintiff's decedent who was later killed in accident with that motorist).
Because this case is controlled by the "public duty doctrine", we do not reach the issues of sovereign or official immunity. City of Rome, supra at 27, 426 S.E.2d 861. Although the trial court's order did not address the "public duty doctrine," an order right for any reason will be affirmed. Kidd v. First Commerce Bank, 264 Ga.App. 536, 540, 591 S.E.2d 369 (2003).
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|