 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. City of Atlanta6/23/2005
SMITH, P. J., ELLINGTON and ADAMS, JJ.
This appeal arises out of the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the City of Atlanta (the city) in a negligence and nuisance action brought by plaintiff Janetta Thompson. Because Thompson failed to point to a triable issue of fact on either claim, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Thompson brought this action for personal injuries, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the city and United Water Services Unlimited Atlanta LLC (United). She alleged in her complaint that on the evening of November 25, 1999, the vehicle she was driving hydroplaned on a "large body of water covering the" roadway in "the area of the intersection of Perry Boulevard and Habershal Drive" (the intersection) and struck several trees. Thompson's infant son died as a result of head injuries he received. Thompson alleged that the defendants negligently constructed or maintained the intersection and knew or should have known about the dangerous condition of that intersection. Thompson dismissed United without prejudice. In an amended complaint Thompson later added a nuisance claim, alleging that the city "is responsible for the maintenance of and design for the drainage system in the area of Habershal Drive and Perry Boulevard, including the design of storm sewers and their relationship with the roadway." She alleged further that " uring rain events the intersection . . . ponds with water because [the city's] maintenance and design of the drainage system in the area is inadequate."
The trial court granted summary judgment to the city on Thompson's negligence claims on the ground that the city was protected by governmental immunity. The court further concluded that Thompson failed to show that the city had notice of any condition creating a nuisance and granted summary judgment to the city on that claim as well. Thompson appeals.
1. Relying on OCGA ยง 32-4-93 (a), Thompson contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the city was immune from liability on her negligence claims. That Code section provides:
A municipality is relieved of any and all liability resulting from or occasioned by defects in the public roads of its municipal street system when it has not been negligent in constructing or maintaining the same or when it has no actual notice thereof or when such defect has not existed for a sufficient length of time for notice thereof to be inferred.
Id.
In concluding that the city was entitled to sovereign immunity, the court based its ruling on language found in City of Rome v. Turk, 235 Ga. 223 (219 SE2d 97) (1975). In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that " he power to construct and maintain a sewer and drainage system is a governmental function." (Citations omitted.) Id. at 224 (1). This court has similarly stated that " he construction, installation and maintenance of a sewer-drainage system (including that for surface water) is a governmental function of the city." Foster v. Crowder, 117 Ga. App. 568 (1) (161 SE2d 364) (1968).
Thompson argues that the trial court effectively "made the determination that this case is about a negligently constructed and maintained sewer and drainage system within Appellee's city limits and not a case about a defective roadway." She contends that her claim is not based simply on the defectiveness of the sewer and drainage system, but instead "that the basis of her claims is the negligently constructed and/or maintained roadway, which roadway was impacted negatively due to water on its surface which could not properly drain."
We need not decide the related issues of whether
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|