Driscoll v. Board of Regents of the University System
326 Ga. App. 315
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- On March 4, 2010 Deborah Driscoll was killed when a wheel from a Georgia State University van struck her car on I-285.
- Counsel for the estate sent an ante litem notice to the State (DOAS) on February 8, 2011 describing the incident, identifying the estate as claimant, date/location, injury (loss of life), and the state entity involved, and requesting an amicable resolution. The notice did not state any dollar amount of loss.
- In July 2011 counsel sent a later demand letter to DOAS identifying specific dollar amounts (human life value, funeral expenses, etc.).
- Driscoll filed suit on February 29, 2012. The Board asserted sovereign immunity and moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the GTCA ante litem requirements.
- The trial court granted the Board’s motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, holding the ante litem notice failed to state the amount of loss as required by OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ante litem notice satisfied OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E)’s requirement to state the amount of loss | Driscoll argued the notice provided adequate information and later demand letter supplied amounts; strict binding should not bar claim | Board argued the notice contained no amount of loss and strict statutory compliance is required to waive sovereign immunity | Held: Notice was inadequate—no amount of loss stated; dismissal affirmed because strict compliance is required (though not hyper‑technical) |
| Whether substantial compliance suffices instead of strict compliance with GTCA notice provisions | Driscoll argued equitable considerations and minimal prejudice make substantial compliance sufficient | Board argued the legislature requires strict compliance for waiver of sovereign immunity | Held: Strict compliance is the rule; courts will not ignore a wholly absent statutory element though courts avoid hyper‑technicality when inappropriate |
| Whether claimant’s later knowledge or inability to value damages excuses omission in ante litem notice | Driscoll contended some losses are hard to value and statute permits statement to extent of knowledge and practicability | Board noted claimant had completed losses and could have stated amounts within statutory period | Held: Omission not excused—circumstances did not prevent assigning values; later demand letter does not cure initial failure |
| Whether stating an amount in the ante litem notice would unduly bind claimant at trial | Driscoll’s counsel argued fear of being bound justifies vagueness | Board argued the statute contemplates imperfect information and only requires best knowledge/belief | Held: Ante litem amount is not meant to bind but to give magnitude; claimant must state an amount to the extent practicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga. v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (2009) (ante litem notice requirements and purpose explained)
- Cummings v. Ga. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (2007) (strict compliance with GTCA notice provisions required but not hyper‑technical)
- Myers v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 324 Ga. App. 685 (2013) (contrast where incomplete statement of loss was sufficient because claimant was still incurring losses)
- Norris v. Dept. of Transp., 268 Ga. 192 (1997) (procedural requirement to give notice before suit under GTCA)
- Perdue v. Athens Technical College, 283 Ga. App. 404 (2007) (limitations on when omission may be excused)
- Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Griggs, 322 Ga. App. 519 (2013) (example of adequate specificity regarding accident location)