DeFloria v. Walker
317 Ga. App. 578
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Walker sued the Department of Corrections after a 9/29/2009 motorcycle collision in Toombs County with a DOC vehicle; he sought damages including medical bills and expenses.
- Plaintiff claimed an Oct 15, 2009 letter to Greg Shuford of DOAS served as ante-litem notice under OCGA § 50-21-26 and that subsequent correspondence evidenced notice.
- DOC moved to dismiss for failure to attach evidence of delivery and copies showing compliance with ante-litem notice; trial court denied the motion.
- Trial court reviewed the motion de novo; record showed October 15 letter was not mailed by certified mail/overnight or delivered with receipt to DOAS, and there was no clear copy to the DOC as the required recipient.
- Court held strict compliance with OCGA § 50-21-26(a) is required and Walker failed to strictly comply, so the complaint was subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Judgment vacated and remanded with direction to dismiss the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether strict compliance is required for ante-litem notice under GTCA | Walker contends the Oct 15 letter sufficed as notice | DOC argues strict compliance is required and notice did not meet delivery/copy requirements | Strict compliance required; Walker failed |
| Whether Oct 15, 2009 letter satisfied notice delivery and recipient requirements | Letter acknowledged by DOAS personnel via subsequent communications | No certified/overnight delivery or proper recipient copy | Not satisfied; not proper delivery or recipient copy |
| Whether failure to attach required exhibits to the complaint affected jurisdiction | Plaintiff asserts notice was provided | Exhibits showing compliance required | Failure to attach exhibits meant lack of jurisdiction; dismiss accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 276 Ga. App. 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (de novo review of dismissal ruling; strict compliance required for ante litem notice)
- Cummings v. Ga. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (Ga. 2007) (GTCA strict compliance governs; substantial compliance is insufficient)
- Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 256 Ga. App. 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (government cannot waive statutory notice requirements)
- Norris v. Dep’t of Transp., 268 Ga. 192 (Ga. 1997) (delivery timing can satisfy notice if proper under statute)
- Williams v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 272 Ga. 624 (Ga. 2000) (emphasizes strict compliance and plain meaning of statute)