346 Ga. App. 387
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- Farmer, an inmate in GDOC custody, slipped on leaked pallet-jack fluid on May 16, 2013 and suffered knee injuries (torn meniscus and ACL).
- She served an ante-litem notice to GDOC on September 27, 2013 indicating injury, treatment, possible future disability, but stating "The damages amount has not yet been determined."
- Farmer sued for negligence; GDOC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), arguing the notice failed to state the amount of loss and identify acts/omissions.
- Farmer later (August 26, 2014) submitted a settlement-demand package specifying $100,000, but it was sent after the 12-month statutory ante-litem window.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to strictly comply with OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) (amount of loss); Farmer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ante-litem notice satisfied OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) (must state amount of loss) | Farmer: notice complied because amount was unknown/ongoing; later settlement demand supplied amount | GDOC: notice gave no dollar amount or range; later demand was untimely (after 12 months) and cannot cure jurisdictional defect | Held: Notice failed strict compliance because it stated no amount or range; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether later settlement-demand package cures original notice defect | Farmer: post-notice demand established amount of loss | GDOC: demand was sent after statutory 12-month deadline and cannot amend notice | Held: Post-deadline settlement demand untimely and cannot supplement the ante-litem notice |
| Whether trial court improperly considered materials outside the pleadings | Farmer: court erred by considering documents beyond complaint | GDOC: court may consider extrinsic evidence when jurisdictional facts are contested | Held: No error — jurisdictional challenge may be resolved with affidavits/evidence outside the pleadings; court permissibly considered such materials |
| Whether strict compliance standard was applied correctly | Farmer: statute allows estimates when exact amount impractical | GDOC: statute requires some statement of amount to the extent practicable; strict compliance required | Held: Court correctly applied strict compliance; plaintiff must provide some amount or range based on knowledge/belief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Myers, 295 Ga. 843 (2014) (ante‑litem notice must state some amount of loss to extent of claimant’s knowledge)
- Williams v. Wilcox State Prison, 341 Ga. App. 290 (2017) (GTCA notice provisions are jurisdictional and construed strictly)
- Dorn v. Ga. Dep’t of Behavioral Health & Dev. Disabilities, 329 Ga. App. 384 (2014) (standard of review: sovereign-immunity jurisdictional rulings reviewed de novo)
- Ga. Dep’t of Transp. v. King, 341 Ga. App. 102 (2017) (ante‑litem notice that provided no amount of loss failed strict compliance)