Phillips v. Hanse

We granted certiorari in this case1 to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly held that the appellee, Sean Hanse, was entitled to summary judgment on the ground of official immunity. Because we conclude that Hanse was involved in a discretionary act in engaging in a high-speed chase and did not act with actual malice in doing so, we conclude that the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Hanse was entitled to summary judgment. 1. County law enforcement officers such as Hanse are entitled to official or qualified “immunity for the negligent performance of discretionary acts within the scope of their authority,” but “they may be personally liable if they negligently perform a ministerial act or act with actual malice or an intent to injure” when performing a discretionary act.2

The facts of the case are set out in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and will only be reiterated here where necessary. In this regard, the record shows that Hanse engaged in a high-speed chase that “ended when the suspect struck a car driven by Terron Phillips, killing him and injuring the three children who were passengers in the car.”3 Moreover, the evidence shows that, during the high-speed chase, Hanse violated several provisions in a Fulton County police manual setting out rules for such chases. Hanse, for example, did not come to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic lights during the chase, and there was some evidence that Hanse bumped the fleeing vehicle in violation of the manual.