Georgia Department of Transportation v. Crooms
316 Ga. App. 536
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Crooms sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) under the GTCA for wrongful death and injuries arising from a single-vehicle crash on Interstate 20 in rainy weather.
- DOT moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(1), arguing sovereign immunity barred the suit.
- Trial court denied the motion, concluding DOT was not immune; DOT appealed directly.
- GTCA § 50-21-24(10) creates immunity for highway plan/design when originally built in substantial compliance with then-existing standards.
- Evidence showed the accident involved hydroplaning; plaintiffs claimed DOT neglected to maintain the roadway to address the hazard.
- The record lacked evidence that the original design/construction had deteriorated; a key engineer’s opinion that the surface was worn was deemed speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does GTCA § 50-21-24(10) immunize DOT from maintenance-based claims? | Croomses argue ordinary maintenance negligence causes the hydroplaning hazard. | DOT asserts immunity applies to design-related claims and to maintenance that would alter original design. | Immunity applies; maintenance claim is barred. |
| Is there evidence of deterioration so as to defeat immunity? | Croomses show wear or deterioration creating unsafe hydroplaning conditions. | No substantial change from original design; evidence fails to show deterioration. | No deterioration shown; immunity remains. |
| Is the expert’s wear/deterioration opinion admissible evidence under the record? | Engineer testimony supports that maintenance would restore safety. | Opinion is speculative absent evidence of deterioration. | Speculative opinion rejected; does not overcome immunity. |
| Did the stipulation bar assertion of negligent design claims affect immunity? | Stipulation undermines defendant’s design-immunity argument. | Stipulation confirms no negligent-design claim; immunity analysis remains. | Stipulation supports immunity finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Transp. v. Cox, 246 Ga. App. 221 (Georgia App. 2000) (Immunity where no deterioration and original design conformed to standards)
- Steele v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 271 Ga. App. 374 (Georgia App. 2005) (Clarifies design-versus-maintenance immunity framework)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668 (Georgia App. 2002) (Any-evidence standard for pretrial dismissal under GTCA immunity)
- Bankers Health & Life Ins. Co. v. Fryhofer, 114 Ga. App. 107 (Georgia App. 1966) (Foundational rule re contradictions precluding factual issues)