See Perkins v. Morgan County School Dist., 222 Ga. App. 831, 835(2) ( 476 S.E.2d 592) (1996); Wrightv. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91, 91 ( 469 S.E.2d 268) (1996). The Chamlees contend that because Ianitello violated several school policies, his inadequate supervision of Samuel and Felix constitute negligent performance of ministerial duties, and therefore he was not entitled to official immunity.

"[S]chool employees are entitled to official immunity from their actions if those actions are within the scope of their employment, discretionary in nature, and without wilfulness, malice, or corruption." Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91, 92, 469 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1996). Where a task is ministerial, official immunity does not apply. "Generally, a ministerial act is one that `is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.'"

"[S]chool employees are entitled to official immunity from their actions if those actions are within the scope of their employment, discretionary in nature, and without wilfulness, malice, or corruption." Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91, 92, 469 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1996). Where a task is ministerial, official immunity does not apply. "Generally, a ministerial act is one that `is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.'"

Perkins v. Morgan Cnty. Sch. Dist., 222 Ga.App. 831, 835(2), 476 S.E.2d 592 (1996) (emphasis supplied); accord Leake v. Murphy, 274 Ga.App. 219, 224(2), 617 S.E.2d 575 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Murphy v. Bajjani, 282 Ga. 197, 647 S.E.2d 54 (2007); see also Reece v. Turner, 284 Ga.App. 282, 285(1), 643 S.E.2d 814 (2007) (“The determination of whether an action is discretionary or ministerial depends on the character of the specific actions complained of, not the general nature of the job, and is to be made on a case-by-case basis.” (punctuation omitted)); Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga.App. 91, 94, 469 S.E.2d 268 (1996) ( “[T]he general task imposed on teachers to monitor, supervise, and control students has ... been held to be a discretionary action which is protected by the doctrine of official immunity.”)

"[T]he determination of whether an action is discretionary or ministerial depends on the character of the specific actions complained of, not the general nature of the job, and is to be made on a case-by-case basis." Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91, 93 ( 469 SE2d 268) (1996). Here, Turner relies upon paragraphs four and five of the 1992 Memorandum to support her argument that appellants breached ministerial duties.

"[S]chool employees are entitled to official immunity from their actions if those actions are within the scope of their employment, discretionary in nature, and without willfulness, malice, or corruption." Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91, 92, 469 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1996). "[I]n the context of official immunity, actual malice requires a deliberate intention to do wrong and denotes express malice or malice in fact."

“[S]chool employees are entitled to official immunity from their actions if those actions are within the scope of their employment, discretionary in nature, and without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.” Foster v. Raspberry, 652 F.Supp.2d at 1354 (quoting Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga.App. 91, 469 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1996)). A discretionary task is one which “calls for the exercise of personal deliberation and judgment, which in turn entails examining the facts, reaching reasoned conclusions, and acting on them in a way not specifically directed.”

Daniels v. Gordon, 503 S.E.2d 72, 75 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) ("[T]he general task imposed on teachers to monitor, supervise, and control students [is] a discretionary action which is protected by the doctrine of official immunity." (citing Wright v. Ashe, 469 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996))). Defendant Jones used discretion in deciding that power to the welder should be restored immediately.

The essence of the Plaintiff claims is that Defendant Duncan failed to use sound judgment when hiring, supervising and disciplining Defendant Mency and protecting Plaintiff. To determine whether an action is discretionary or ministerial, and therefore unprivileged, one must consider, on a case by case basis, the character of the complained of actions Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91 93, 469 S.E.2d 268, 270-71 (1996). "A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty.

Perkins v. Morgan County School Dist., supra, 222 Ga. App. 831. See also Wright v. Ashe, 220 Ga. App. 91 ( 469 SE2d 268) (1996) (enforcement of policies regarding students leaving campus is discretionary). As such, Ms. McDowell's failure to adhere to the check-out policy was a failure to perform a discretionary act for which she cannot be held liable.