Plaintiff Jackson appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Department of Transportation and its employee Jones, a maintenance engineer. In Jackson’s action against DOT and its employees, he alleged that DOT was responsible for maintaining thе state highway system; that Georgia Highway 144 in Camden County was a public road designated by DOT as part of the state highway system; that he was injured while driving on Stаte Route 1850 (same road); and his permanent injuries were caused by defendants’ negligent repair and maintenance of the road and the defective design and condition of the road. DOT and Jones filed answers in which they denied that the road in question was part of the state highway system and further asserted that Jackson had failed to attach an affidavit to the complaint as required by OCGA § 9-11-9.1, relating to actions for malpractice.
The Supreme Court has recently pronounced as to summary judgment: “A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmov
*864
ing party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to sрecific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”
Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,
Jackson sought recovery basеd upon OCGA § 32-2-6 which provides that DOT is responsible for damages awarded against any county where the cause of action accruеs on a public road designated by DOT as part of the state highway system. See
DOT v. Land,
Other Code sections also bear on the issues. OCGA § 32-4-1 (1) defines “statе highway system.” OCGA § 32-2-2 requires DOT to “plan, designate, improve, manage, control, construct, and maintain a state highway system” and to “have contrоl of and responsibility for all construction, maintenance, or any other work upon the state highway system.” DOT is forbidden by law from maintaining any publiс road not on the state highway system. Any DOT contract with a political subdivision for construction of a public road, not then, nor to become, part of the state highway system shall not relieve the political subdivision of the responsibility for maintaining the road. OCGA § 32-2-61 (e). The county, and not DOT, has the same responsibilities as does DOT for a state road regarding the construction, maintenance and all other work related to a county road. OCGA § 32-4-41 (1). DOT is liable only if the instant road is part of the state highway system.
DOT produced the affidavit of its Chief of Cartography that Route S 1850 (also known as county road 144) has been designated as part of the County Road System since the State Highway Department (now DOT) began keeping records in 1938. See OCGA § 32-4-2 (a). This shifted the burden to Jackson who attempted to refute this proof with the accident report which tеnded to show that the road was a state route. However, the state patrolman who prepared the report by affidavit deсlared that he had made a mistake and the road indeed was a county one. This would not fulfill Jackson’s burden as the nonmoving party to show a genuine issue of material fact. 1 Neither would a 1961 resolution by Camden County that it would “at *865 its own cost and expense, maintain the project in a manner satisfactory to the Authority and State Highway Department, and will make ample provision each year for its maintenance.” None of this overcomes the statutory directives and could not impose liability upon DOT for maintenance or repair. Liability is fixеd by the statute.
Jackson has referred to testimony from depositions to sustain his contention that there is a factual issue with respect tо the road’s status. Jackson as appellant has the burden of showing error by record. However, these depositions were not includеd in the original record and cannot be used to substantiate Jackson’s arguments. See
Brown v. Frachiseur,
Since there is no negligence attributed to thе individual defendant Jones other than would be attributable to DOT, summary judgment in favor of DOT and Jones appears authorized. Nevertheless, Jaсkson contends that even if there is no liability for maintenance and repair an issue as to defective design remains. Defendants cоunter with Jackson’s failure to file an affidavit contemporaneously with the complaint and their raising such issue in their initial responsive pleadings. OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (e). Jackson replies that his complaint was not for “professional malpractice” and thus the Code section is not aрplicable.
Designing roads requires “engineering services” which have been described as the performance of professionаl services within the purview of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 by the Supreme Court.
Kneip v. Southern Engineering Co.,
“[E]ven in cases of f clear and palpable’ professional negligence it is still necessary that the plaintiff file an еxpert affidavit contemporaneously with the filing of the complaint.”
Housing Auth. of Savannah
*866
v. Greene,
Summary judgment for the defendants was authorized.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
This is not to say that the entry by a highway patrolman on an accident report as to the road in question being part of the state system would not have evidentiary value vis-a-vis the testimony by the state official in charge of cartography that the road was not under state control.