310 Ga. App. 672
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Price sued the City of Moultrie for property damages alleged to result from a fire caused by a corroded power line the City maintained.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing Price failed to provide a proper ante litem notice as required by OCGA § 36-33-5(b).
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the City sought interlocutory appeal and the Court of Appeals granted review.
- OCGA § 36-33-5 requires a six-month written ante litem notice stating time, place, extent of injury, and negligence.
- Price faxed a fire department report and an inventory list to an insurer, which the City argued did not satisfy the notice requirements.
- The court held that Price’s notice did not substantially comply and reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ante litem notice is a condition precedent. | Price contends substantial compliance suffices via notice and documents. | Moultrie argues strict compliance with six-month письмен notice is required. | Strict/substantial compliance required; not met here. |
| Whether the faxed fire report and inventory satisfied OCGA § 36-33-5(b). | Documents provided notice of loss and alleged negligence by the City. | Reports did not show the City’s negligence as cause of the fire. | Not sufficient to show negligence causing the injury. |
| Whether oral and written notices together satisfy ante litem requirements. | Oral communications plus written notice should suffice. | Oral notice, even with written notice, cannot satisfy ante litem requirements. | Oral combined with written notice does not satisfy the requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canberg v. City of Toccoa, 245 Ga. App. 75, 535 S.E.2d 854 (2000) (strict construction of ante litem statute)
- Davis v. City of Forsyth, 275 Ga. App. 747, 621 S.E.2d 495 (2005) (substantial compliance allowed)
- Bush v. City of Albany, 125 Ga. App. 558, 188 S.E.2d 245 (1972) (notice must be detailed and actionable)
- Vaillant v. City of Atlanta, 267 Ga. App. 294, 599 S.E.2d 261 (2004) (oral notice cannot satisfy ante litem)
- Harris-Jackson v. City of Cochran, 287 Ga. App. 722, 652 S.E.2d 607 (2007) (ante litem requirement applied to damages actions)