371 Ga. App. 824
Ga. Ct. App.2024Background
- On June 1, 2020, eight-year-old Jeremiah Dates was injured by a falling tree branch on City of Atlanta property.
- Kierra Dates, both individually and as Jeremiah’s guardian, sought damages from the City, sending an ante litem notice on June 12, 2020, stating the damages claimed were "in excess of $500,000."
- Over a year later, a supplemental notice specified the amount as $1,000,000, but this second notice was untimely.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice was deficient as it did not state a specific claim amount and was untimely.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the initial notice non-compliant with statutory requirements, and ruled against the plaintiff’s tolling and constitutional arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolling for Minors | Minor’s ante litem notice period should be tolled under OCGA § 9-3-90 | The ante litem requirement is not a statute of limitation, so tolling does not apply | No tolling; statute does not apply to ante litem notice period |
| Sufficiency of Ante Litem Notice | Notice stating “in excess of $500,000” substantially complies with statute | The law requires a specific monetary amount, not an indefinite sum | Notice was too indefinite; did not comply with statute |
| Constitutionality (Equal Protection) | Statute is unconstitutional under state/federal law for lack of tolling for minors | Plaintiff lacks standing; statute is constitutional | Court could not consider merits as standing/inclusion was not properly raised or ruled upon |
| Supplemental Notice | Supplemental notice specifying $1M cures defect | Untimely supplement cannot relate back to original notice | Untimely supplemental notice is ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Public Safety v. Ragsdale, 308 Ga. 210 (Ga. 2020) (held ante litem notice requirement is not a statute of limitation; tolling statutes do not apply)
- City of Chamblee v. Maxwell, 264 Ga. 635 (Ga. 1994) (ante litem notice rules strictly construed)
- Harrell v. City of Griffin, 346 Ga. App. 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (notice must specify monetary amount to be a binding offer)
- Abernathy v. City of Albany, 269 Ga. 88 (Ga. 1998) (legislative acquiescence in longstanding judicial construction)
- Brown v. Fokes Properties, 283 Ga. 231 (Ga. 2008) (uncontested grounds for judgment are binding and correct)