At approximately 9:45 p.m. on July 1, 1973, an automobile being driven by Thomas Coppedge, Sr., in which his wife and two minor children were passengers, and one being driven by Betty Ann Long collided at the intersection of 14th Avenue and 37th Street in Columbus. Plaintiffs Coppedge brought two suits for damages against Betty Long and Columbus, Georgia, alleging that there was a stop sign maintained by defendant municipality requiring vehicles proceeding east on 37th Street to stop prior to entering the intersection; that defendant Long, proceeding east on 37th Street, failed to stop prior to entering the intersection; that the stop sign was partially obscured from view by foliage, limbs and other growth; that on the date of the collision and for several weeks beforehand the police and members of the Metro Council of defendant municipality had knowledge *6 that the stop sign was concealed; that numerous accidents had resulted from the stop sign’s being obscured by foliage and other growth; that the Columbus police and members of the Columbus Council knew that numerous accidents had occurred because of the obscured stop sign; that defendant municipality’s negligent and careless maintenance of the stop sign at the intersection in allowing it to be concealed by limbs and foliage constituted a nuisance in that it interfered with the orderly and safe operation of vehicles and rendered the street not reasonably safe for use; and that this hazardous condition created by defendant municipality’s negligence and the negligence of defendant Long concurred in causing the injuries and damages complained of.
Defendant Long answered and asserted a cross claim against the municipality, alleging that the stop sign was completely obscured from her view; that defendant municipality knew that the stop sign was completely obscured by foliage, limbs and other growth as described in the complaint; that all of the damages and injuries complained of were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant municipality in knowingly maintaining the stop sign as described in the complaint and in knowingly allowing it to become completely obscured from the view of oncoming traffic even though it was on notice of the condition and of resulting collisions; and that she was injured and damaged in a stated amount as the result of the negligence of the municipality in maintaining the intersection as set out above.
Defendant municipality moved to dismiss the complaint and defendant Long’s answer and cross claim, contending that these pleadings set forth no claim for relief against it and that liability was sought to be established against it for its performance of a governmental function. The trial court granted the motions and ordered the complaint, answer, and cross claim dismissed. Plaintiffs Coppedge appeal in the first two cases from the dismissal of their two complaints, and defendant Long appeals in the second two from the dismissal of her answers and cross claim. Held:
"This appeal is another of the progeny stemming
from Town of Fort Oglethorpe v. Phillips,
In another progeny,
Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Palmerio,
The complaints and the cross claim in the instant cases adequately set forth the claims sought to be asserted. "Since the adoption of the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609: 1967, p. 226; Code Ann. Title 81A) a complaint need not set forth a cause of action in order to
*8
withstand a motion to dismiss but need only to set forth a claim for relief. Under that title, the complaint may no longer be construed most strongly against the pleader. 'Furthermore, "a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim. If, within the framework of the complaint, evidence may be introduced which will sustain a grant of relief to the plaintiff, the complaint is sufficient.” 2A Moore, Federal Practice 1706, § 8.13.’
Mitchell v. Dickey,
Judgments reversed.
Notes
This court declined to apply the
Fort Oglethorpe
doctrine to the State Highway Department in
State Highway Dept. v. Barrett,
