Board of Regents of the University System v. Jordan
335 Ga. App. 703
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two sets of parents sued the Board of Regents (BOR) and several MCG entities under the Georgia Tort Claims Act for negligent medical care their children received at the Children’s Hospital of Georgia (Richmond County).
- The alleged negligent acts/omissions occurred in Richmond County; the children were later treated and suffered substantial additional losses (multiple corrective surgeries, prolonged hospitalization) in DeKalb County.
- Plaintiffs filed their complaints in DeKalb County, asserting venue was proper there because a substantial portion of the losses occurred in DeKalb.
- BOR and MCG moved to transfer venue to Richmond County; the trial court denied the motions, relying on OCGA § 50-21-28 (venue where the loss occurred).
- Defendants appealed interlocutorily; the Court of Appeals consolidated four identical appeals and reviewed venue de novo because the material facts were undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 50-21-28 permits venue in a county where a substantial portion of damages ("loss") occurred, not where the tortious act occurred | Venue is proper in DeKalb because plaintiffs suffered economic loss, pain and suffering, and other elements of "loss" there | Venue must be in the county where the negligent acts/omissions occurred (Richmond) | Held for plaintiffs: statute’s plain language allows venue where the loss occurred; DeKalb is proper because losses occurred there |
| Whether multiple suits in different counties from same occurrence creates an absurd result under § 50-21-28 | Plaintiffs: no absurdity; plaintiff may elect among loss locations | Defendants: literal reading would subject State to multiple suits across counties from same incident | Held for plaintiffs: Supreme Court precedent permits plaintiffs to elect venue among locations of loss; joinder rules and statute do not preclude election |
| Whether appellate court should decide BOR’s interlocutory claim about statutory damage limits under OCGA § 50-21-29(b)(1) | BOR asked review now | Plaintiffs wanted to defer | Court declined to address the merits now, preserving BOR’s right to appeal later |
Key Cases Cited
- HD Supply, Inc. v. Garger, 299 Ga. App. 751 (de novo review applies when law is applied to undisputed facts)
- Dean v. Tabsum, Inc., 272 Ga. (Supreme Court decision establishing that mandatory venue provision of OCGA § 50-21-28 applies when a State entity is sued under the GTCA)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Evans, 269 Ga. 400 (literal interpretation of § 50-21-28 allowing venue at any county of loss does not produce an absurd result; plaintiff may elect among loss locations)
- Hall County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Peachtree Doors, 214 Ga. App. 613 (statutory plain language controls when unambiguous)
Judgment affirmed.