Recent Developments from Around the States

GEORGIA

Injured Longshoreman May Sue Port Authority

The Georgia Ports Authority was not subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity to a suit filed by a longshoreman who was injured while working on a container ship docked at a port authority terminal, the Georgia Supreme Court has held. (Hines v. Georgia Ports Auth., 2004 WL 2282948 (Ga. Oct. 12).

Longshoreman Johnny Hines was working on a docked ship when a fellow worker negligently operated a crane-loading container onto the ship and injured Hines. Hines and his wife brought suit for his injuries and for loss of consortium against the coworker, the Georgia Ports Authority, and the owner of the container ship. All defendants moved to dismiss Hines' claims, but the trial court permitted those claims to go forward. An intermediate appellate court affirmed as to the claims against the coworker and the ship owner, but reversed the trial court as to the port authority, reasoning that the port authority — as an arm of the State of Georgia – was immune to suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Hines appealed that portion of the appellate court's decision to the Georgia Supreme court.

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the lower court, finding that the port authority was not immune to suit. The Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had held in 1999, in Alden v. Maine, (527 U.S. 706), that the Eleventh Amendment protects “states and arms of the state” from suit by private individuals. However, citing Eleventh Circuit authority, the court found that the port authority was not an arm of the state. For example, the court said, the port authority could raise revenue by issuing bonds, and that it could repay debt only from its own revenue. Other factors also weighed in favor of finding that the port authority was not an arm of the state: the state legislature did not have to appropriate funds to finance the port authority's operations; those operations could be maintained by rental fees; the state had limited control over the port authority; and the port authority was not assigned to any state executive agency for administrative purposes. These and other factors, the court held, compelled the conclusion that the port authority was not an arm of the State of Georgia and that it was therefore susceptible to suit.

GEORGIA

Injured Longshoreman May Sue Port Authority

The Georgia Ports Authority was not subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity to a suit filed by a longshoreman who was injured while working on a container ship docked at a port authority terminal, the Georgia Supreme Court has held. (Hines v. Georgia Ports Auth., 2004 WL 2282948 (Ga. Oct. 12).

Longshoreman Johnny Hines was working on a docked ship when a fellow worker negligently operated a crane-loading container onto the ship and injured Hines. Hines and his wife brought suit for his injuries and for loss of consortium against the coworker, the Georgia Ports Authority, and the owner of the container ship. All defendants moved to dismiss Hines' claims, but the trial court permitted those claims to go forward. An intermediate appellate court affirmed as to the claims against the coworker and the ship owner, but reversed the trial court as to the port authority, reasoning that the port authority — as an arm of the State of Georgia – was immune to suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Hines appealed that portion of the appellate court's decision to the Georgia Supreme court.

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the lower court, finding that the port authority was not immune to suit. The Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had held in 1999, in Alden v. Maine, (527 U.S. 706), that the Eleventh Amendment protects “states and arms of the state” from suit by private individuals. However, citing Eleventh Circuit authority, the court found that the port authority was not an arm of the state. For example, the court said, the port authority could raise revenue by issuing bonds, and that it could repay debt only from its own revenue. Other factors also weighed in favor of finding that the port authority was not an arm of the state: the state legislature did not have to appropriate funds to finance the port authority's operations; those operations could be maintained by rental fees; the state had limited control over the port authority; and the port authority was not assigned to any state executive agency for administrative purposes. These and other factors, the court held, compelled the conclusion that the port authority was not an arm of the State of Georgia and that it was therefore susceptible to suit.