Department of Transportation v. King
341 Ga. App. 102
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Shenita King sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) after an alleged car collision caused by a GDOT employee, seeking damages for pain and suffering.
- Before suit, King served an ante litem notice stating she was still under treatment, that total damages were undetermined, and that she would "claim the full amount of damages allowed by law."
- GDOT moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the notice failed to state the amount of loss as required by the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E).
- The trial court denied dismissal, reasoning the phrase "full amount of damages allowed by law" reasonably put GDOT on notice that King sought the statutory GTCA cap of $1,000,000 (OCGA § 50-21-29(b)(1)).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the ante litem notice failed to state any amount of loss known at the time and that referencing the statutory cap does not satisfy the notice requirement or inform the State of the claim’s magnitude for settlement purposes.
- Dissent argued the phrase reasonably conveyed a $1,000,000 claim under the GTCA cap and satisfied the purpose of the ante litem requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ante litem notice stating only that plaintiff will "claim the full amount of damages allowed by law" satisfies GTCA requirement to "state the amount of the loss claimed" | King: Phrase gives defendant notice of magnitude — under GTCA cap it signals $1,000,000 | GDOT: Phrase states no dollar amount known/claimed and thus fails strict ante litem requirement; jurisdiction lacking | Reversed trial court: notice insufficient — failed to state amount known at time; referencing statutory cap does not meet the "amount of loss claimed" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ga. Ports Auth. v. Harris, 243 Ga. App. 508 (jurisdiction depends on ante litem compliance)
- Loehle v. Ga. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 334 Ga. App. 836 (standard of review for sovereign-immunity dismissal)
- Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Myers, 295 Ga. (ante litem must state amount of loss known/practicable; strict compliance required)
- Silva v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 337 Ga. App. 116 (failure to state amount of loss is fatal)
- Dorn v. Ga. Dept. of Behavioral Health & Dev. Disabilities, 329 Ga. App. 384 (deficient notice where amount unspecified rhetoric)
- Driscoll v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 326 Ga. App. 315 (deficient ante litem where amount not stated)
- Mabelton Parkway CVS v. Salter, 273 Ga. App. 477 (actual damages — not statutory cap alone — define recoverable "full amount")