These appeals are from judgments dismissing the complaints of the appellants.
Mrs. Daisy Lucillе Revels sued Tift County, the members of its board of commissioners in their official capacitiеs, and the ordinary of the county, for damages, alleging that she received injuries in falling in the ordinary’s office in the courthouse, which injuries were caused by the county’s negligent maintenance of the floors in this office. Wallace Revels, her husband, sued for medical expenses and loss of her services arising from the same injuries.
The complaints asserted that Code § 23-1502 violаtes the Constitution of Georgia, Art. I, Sec. I, Pars. Ill and IV (Code Ann. §§ 2-103, 2-104); and the United States Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. IV (Codе § 1-407), and the Fifth (Code § 1-805), Seventh (Code § 1-807), Ninth (Code § 1-809), and Fourteenth (Code § 1-814) Amendments.
It vas further asserted that the defendants waived their immunity from suit under Code § 23-1502 by previously compensating a person or persons for comparable injuries on the same county property, and by purchasing insuranсe for the purpose of compensating persons for such injuries.
The trial judge sustained thе defenses that the complaints failed to set forth a claim upon which relief could bе granted, and dismissed the actions. Error is enumerated on the dismissal of the complaints, and on thе failure to allow the completion of discovery by the appellants.
1. Code § 23-1502 provides: "A county is not liable to *334 suit for any cause of action unless made so by statute.”
This declarаtion of the sovereign immunity of the county, as a subdivision of the state, has been a part of оur statutory law since the Code of 1895 (Political Code, § 341), and the principle had been enunсiated by this court prior to that time. See
Millwood v. DeKalb County,
In
Crowder v. Dept. of State Parks,
An amendment to the Constitution was proposed in 1973, and ratified in 1974 (Ga. L. 1973, pp. 1489, 1490; Code Ann. § 2-3710), which аuthorized the General Assembly to establish a State Court of Claims with jurisdiction over cases involving сlaims for damages against the state, its agencies, or political subdivisions. (No implementаtion of this amendment has been made by the General Assembly.) This amendment concludes with the sentеnce: "Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit, but such sоvereign immunity is expressly reserved except to the extent of any waiver of immunity provided in this Constitution and such waiver or qualification of immunity as is now or may hereafter be provided by act of the General Assembly.”
In
Sheley v. Bd. of Public Ed. &c.,
There is no merit in the contention of the appellants that Code § 23-1502 violates the State and Federal Constitutions.
2. The constitutional provision that a county is a body corporate (Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. I, Par. I; Code
*335
Ann. § 2-7801), and the statutory provision thаt a county, as a body corporate, may be sued in any court (Code § 23-1501), do not authorizе a suit against a county for damages where the county is not made liable for such damagеs by the Constitution or by statute.
Millwood v. DeKalb County,
3. The compensation of some other person or persons for comparable injuries on the same county property, or the purchase оf insurance for such purpose, does not create a cause of action in the plaintiffs. The defendants would not be estopped by such unauthorized waiver of the sovereign immunity of the county. Code § 89-903;
Arnold v. Walton,
4. Code Ann. § 56-2437 (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 673) authorizes a county to secure insurance to cover liability for damages on account of bodily injury or damage to property by reason of motor vehicles owned, maintained, operated, or used by the county, and susрends governmental immunity from actions for damages within the limits of such insurance. The procuremеnt of insurance under this statute does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity in regard to damаges caused by the county’s negligence not connected with motor vehicles.
Winston v. City of Austell,
5. The General Assembly has not made counties liable to suit on account of injuries sustained by persons falling on courthouse property, and the complaints failed to state a claim on whiсh relief could be granted. The trial judge did not err in dismissing the actions.
6. No discovery from the defendants could aid the complaints of the appellants, and it is unnecessary to consider the enumerated errors pertaining to the alleged denial of the right of discovery.
Judgment affirmed.