Diamond v. Department of Transportation
326 Ga. App. 189
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Diamonds were injured when their car drove onto a grassy area that had replaced Lakeshore Drive due to a county road rerouting during a road construction project.
- The accident occurred on county-owned property, not on a state highway, while a DOT-oversaw project was underway.
- The DOT moved to dismiss the Diamonds’ negligent-inspection claims as barred by sovereign immunity and granted summary judgment on remaining claims for lack of duty.
- Diamonds appealed, arguing that immunity waiver for negligent design also waived immunity for negligent inspection and that duty to notify about nonoperability was a fact question.
- The trial court and the appellate court analyzed whether a waiver under OCGA 50-21-24(10) (design) extends to negligent-inspection claims and whether a duty existed.
- Court held: waiver on design does not waive immunity on inspection, and duty to warn or construct signs was not established by statute or case law; the state had no duty under these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does design-waiver extend to inspection claims? | Diamonds argue waiver on design claims also waives inspection immunity. | DOT contends waiver on one provision does not affect others. | No; design waiver does not extend to inspection. |
| Did the DOT owe a duty to install signs or warn about closure? | Diamond expert testified DOT duties to signage and obliteration of old roadway were applicable. | County road status means DOT had no duty in this context. | No legal duty; duty must be established by statute or case law, which is absent here. |
| Is duty to motorists framed by county vs state road responsibility | DOT should be responsible given design and inspection standards. | County maintains roads; DOT not responsible for county roads. | Duty lies with counties for county roads; DOT bears no such duty here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reidling v. City of Gainesville, 280 Ga. App. 698 (2006) (waiver on some claims not necessarily all claims; inspection vs design treated separately)
- Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Heller, 285 Ga. 262 (2009) (design waiver not automatically broad; exceptions to immunity analyzed)
- Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality, 289 Ga. 565 (2011) (duty is a question of law; expert testimony cannot create a duty)
- City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26 (1993) (threshold issue in negligence is existence of duty; duty is legal question)
- Adams v. APAC-GA, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 215 (1999) (duty cannot be established through expert testimony alone)
- McGarrah v. Posig, 280 Ga. App. 808 (2006) (legal duty cannot be created by affidavit where none existed)