David Dollar suffered an eye injury during a science experiment performed in his eighth-grade science class taught by appellant Patricia Grammens. The experiment consisted of “launching” a two-liter plastic soda bottle by means of water and air pressure. The soda bottle, containing water, lifted off the launch pad when air was pumped into the bottle and the U-shaped pin holding the bottle in place was removed. The student was struck in the eye by the metal pin when the student removed the pin by pulling on the string attached to the pin in order to launch the bottle. Appellee John F. Dollar is David’s father who, acting individually and on behalf of his son, filed suit against the teacher, the school principal, and the school superintendent, alleging his son’s injury was the result of a purported violation of an eye-protection policy promulgated by the Forsyth County Board of Education. The policy requires people to wear appropriate industrial-quality eye protection equipment at all times while participating in or observing vocational, industrial arts, chemical, physical, or any other course of instruction involving any of the following: 1. Molten metal or other molten materials; 2. Milling, sawing, turning, shaping, cutting, grinding, or stamping on any solid materials; 3. Heat treatment, tempering or kiln-firing of any metal or other materials; 4. Gas or electric arc welding or other forms of welding process; 5. Repair or servicing of any vehicle; 6. Caustic or explosive materials ; 7. Finishing materials and solvents; 8. Injurious radiation or other hazards. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the negligence claims complained of were discretionary acts for which all the defendants were protected from personal liability by official immunity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the superintendent and the principal, but reversed with regard to the teacher. The Court of Appeals determined that the teacher did not fall under the umbrella of official immunity because the eye-protection policy required a ministerial, not discretionary, act on the part of the teacher. Dollar v. Grammens , 294 Ga. App. 888 1 670 SE2d 555 2008. We granted the teacher’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals and asked the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the eye-protection policy imposed upon the teacher a ministerial duty to require those observing or participating in the bottle rocket experiment to wear eye-protection equipment.
The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. Cit.. Qualified immunity “protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.” Cit.. Under Georgia law, a public officer or employee may be personally liable only for ministerial acts negligently performed or acts performed with malice or an intent to injure. Cit.. The rationale for this immunity is to preserve the public employee’s independence of action without fear of lawsuits and to prevent a review of his or her judgment in hindsight. Cit. Cameron v. Lang , 274 Ga. 122 1 549 SE2d 341 2001. Since there is no evidence that Ms. Grammens acted or failed to act with malice, wilfulness, or an intent to injure, the question before us is whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Ms. Grammens’s failure to require students observing the experiment to don safety glasses was the failure to perform a ministerial, rather than a discretionary, act.
