Clemmie Daniels sued the Georgia Department of Transportation (“DOT”) for injuries he sustained in an automobile collision at а state highway intersection. Daniels alleged that the DOT’s negligent design of the intersection and its failure to upgrade the intersection to eliminate safety hazards caused the collision. The trial court granted the DOT’s motion for summary judgment, and Daniels аppeals that order. For reasons which follow, we affirm.
“The applicable summary judgment standard is that of
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
1. In this case, the DOT met its burden of showing it was exempt from liability for Daniels’ negligent design claim under the design standards exception to the Georgia Tort Claims Act (OCGA § 50-21-24 (10)). This exception provides that the State has no liability for “[t]he plan or design for construction of or improvement to highways ... whеre such plan or design is prepared in substantial compliance with generally accepted engineering or dеsign standards in effect at the time of preparation of the plan or designLY (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 50-21-24 (10).
In this case, the record shows that the design рlans for the highway intersection where the accident occurred were completed on March 11, 1940. Accordingly, thе DOT would not be liable to Daniels if the intersection’s design substantially complied with the generally accepted engineering or design standards in effect on March 11,
*238
1940. See
Dept. of Transp. v. Brown,
In support of its motion, the DOT presented the affidavit of a transportation engineer who stated that there were no published design guidelines in existence when the highway in this case was designed, and that the first natiоnal design guide was approved on October 7, 1940. He concluded that the highway intersection “did not violate any acсepted national standards . . . [and that the design] must have been a common intersection design in Georgia during this period since there are so many of these intersections in existence in Georgia.”
In response to the DOT’s evidence, Daniels wаs required to submit expert testimony or some other competent evidence showing “that the plan or design was not prepared in substantial compliance with generally accepted engineering or design standards at the time [the] plаn was prepared.” Brown, supra at 179. Daniels submitted the affidavit and deposition testimony of an engineer, John Glennon, who was familiar with the design standards in effect when the highway plans in this case were finalized. In his affidavit, Glennon stated that based on his education, background, and experience, the design of the highway intersection was not in substantial compliance with generally accepted engineering or design standards in effect at the time. However, in his deposition, Glennon testified that his education, background, experience, and opinion in this case concerning the specific standards applicable to the highway intersection were based on one document titled “A Policy On Intersections At Grade.” The record shows that this document and its standards were not approved until October 7, 1940, approximately seven months after the design plans in this case were finalized.
Because the highway intersection was designed prior to the adoption of these guidelines, neither the guidelines nor Glennon’s testimony “constitute^] evidence which would be admissible for consideration on the issue of [the DOT’s] negligence. [Cit.]” Lynch, supra at 258; OCGA § 50-21-24 (10). Compare Brown, supra (although no published standards existed, evidence showed that plan deviated from generally accepted engineering and design standards). Beсause Daniels failed to point to any evidence creating a triable issue on this claim, the trial court did not err in granting summаry judgment. See Papera, supra.
2. Neither is the DOT liable to Daniels for its alleged failure to upgrade the highway intersection. Daniels contends that the intersection’s design created obvious safety hazards under current design standards and that the DOT therefore had a duty to upgrade the intersection to meet those standards. In promulgating the Georgia *239 Tort Claims Act, the legislature expressly intended that “State government should not have the duty to do everything that might be done. Consequently, it . . . declared to be the public pоlicy of this state that the state shall only be liable in tort actions within the limitations of [the Act] and in accordance with the fаir and uniform principles established in [the Act].” OCGA § 50-21-21 (a). As stated in Division 1, the Georgia Tort Claims Act exempts the DOT from liability for highway design defiсiencies where the highway was initially designed in substantial compliance with then existing design standards. OCGA § 50-21-24 (10). We find that the legislature intended the DOT’s exemption from liability under OCGA § 50-21-24 (10) to include protection for its failure to upgrade a highway to meet current design standards.
In dеtermining the extent of the DOT’s liability under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, we must construe its provisions in a manner that will uphold it in every part.
Exum v. City of Valdosta,
Judgment affirmed.