Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

If anyone has a claim against the State of Georgia for personal injuries caused by a state employee’s negligence, notice must be given in writing, mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services. This is set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(2). Additionally, a copy shall be delivered personally to or mailed by First Class Mail to the State government entity involved. Content of the notice is governed by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5). As a general proposition, such an Ante-Litem Notice must state the extent of the claimant’s knowledge of the circumstances including the name of the government entity, the act or omission involved, the time and place of the alleged negligent act, the nature of the loss suffered, the amount of the loss claimed and the acts or omissions which caused the loss.

As can be seen, Ante-Litem Notices against the State are governed by statute and if these statutes are not closely observed, a claim against a State government agency or employee can be lost altogether. While such claims must be given with in twelve (12) months from the date of the date the loss was discovered or should have been discovered, even if an attempt is made to file a pre-suit notice of loss within twelve (12) months, if the form is not sent in the correct way to the correct individuals, the claim can be time barred. Accordingly, once again, we urge all claimants who may have potential claims against a State government agency or employee to confer with counsel just as soon as possible so as to protect their interests.

Oftentimes we are asked by clients who have claims against government entities and/or employees to represent their interests in personal injury cases. Regrettably, due to the antiquated and harsh doctrine of sovereign immunity (for legal claims), this many times proves to be a difficult undertaking. Simply stated, sovereign immunity protects many government agencies and employees from lawsuits involving personal injuries. Thankfully, there are some exceptions to the rule, most notably when there is another statute that waives the immunity from suit.

With respect to county immunity, the Georgia Code states that county governments are entitled to sovereign immunity unless liability is imposed upon them by law. See O.C.G.A. § 36-1-4. The only statute that imposes liability upon counties by operation of law is O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51, which allows a waiver of sovereign immunity when a county purchases liability insurance for the negligent use or operation of a government owned motor vehicle. The law used to be that if a government employee ran over someone or ran a stop sign and caused serious personal injuries nothing could be done because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As stated, there is now a statute that waives county government immunity in situations involving vehicles. However, if a county employee or agent hurts another person due to a difficult type of negligent act and there is no waiver of sovereign immunity, then there may not be any means of recovery for the innocent victim of the governmental negligence.
Because cases involving sovereign immunity are always factually unique, they require unique legal analysis as well. An ante-litem notice is required for virtually all claims against governmental agencies so anyone with a claim against a county, municipality or state government agency or employee should confer with counsel immediately to preserve their rights. Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity can be overcome again will be a question of both facts and law, but the sooner the analysis begins, the better, because otherwise claims can be barred altogether for failure to file timely pre-suit notifications with the government agency involved.

The use of unnecessary force by law enforcement officers is a common and inexcusable problem. Many of the attorneys at Finch McCranie LLP have law enforcement backgrounds and recognize the inherent dangers of police work and the need at times to use force. However, this does not justify the use of unnecessary force.

The United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion addressing this issue in the context of Taser use. The Court, headquartered in California has sent a strong warning to law enforcement officers that should make them hesitate before routinely using Tasers. It ruled last week that a police officer can be held liable for delivering a high-level electric shock to an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.

The case arose out of an incident involving a young man who was driving to his parents’ home when he was stopped for speeding. He had previously been stopped and ticketed for On the same trip, he was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.

Angry at facing a second traffic citation, he hit the steering wheel and yelled expletives to himself and exited the car. The officer making the stop claimed the young man took one step in his direction, while the young man denied making any such move. However, it is undisputed that the young man was not armed, did not verbally threaten the officer and was not attempting to flee.

Without warning, the officer shot the young man with a Taser, which delivers a very painful, 1,200-volt electric charge. As the current immobilized him, the young man fell to the ground, fracturing four teeth.

The young man sued for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the officer was not justified in using the Taser on the young man who posed no threat, and was merely stopped for speeding.

While the the ruling is only binding on those states which comprise the Ninth Circuit, it is nonetheless important. There have been many questions raised about the dangers of Tasers, with death resulting in some instances. All courts should recognize that the routine use of potentially dangerous force is not justified.

It is a sad reality that innocent citizens are oftentimes injured by their own government. City and county employees and/or state employees operate vehicles on a day-to-day basis and like other drivers sometimes are guilty of negligence which cause considerable damage to innocent third parties. Because of the expansive conduct of governmental entities in virtually every aspect of our lives, there are many other real life scenarios whereby innocent third party citizens cam be and are injured by the acts of government employees. In such circumstances, there is always an issue as to whether the injured individual has a right to sue the government for any damages inflicted because of the longstanding doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

Setting aside for a moment whether one can sue the government successfully and overcome a defense of Sovereign Immunity, another hurdle the injured individual faces in these cases is dealing with statutory pre-suit notice requirements. These pre-suit notice requirements are often referred to as “ante-litem” notice provisions. What this means is that before a injured citizen can sue his or her government with a claim for money damages, they must give the government pre-suit notice of the claim so that the government has a sufficient opportunity to investigate the claim and determine whether the government has any liability and, if so, what damages are involved. Here in Georgia, if an injured individual has a claim against a municipality, they must provide notice to that municipality within six months of the date of the occurrence otherwise their claim is time barred. If they have a claim against a county, they must give notice within one year and the same is true for claims against state government. There are also specific methods by which these notices must be given so if the injured individual is acting without the advice of counsel, they could run afoul of the various ante-litem notice provisions. If they do, they may not be able to sue the government - even if their claim is meritorious. This is why we have referred to these ante-litem provisions in other blogs written on the subject as “Traps for the Unwary.”

If you or any member of your family are injured by a government employee, you should immediately confer with counsel so that pre-suit notice requirements can be observed and your claims not held by law to have been waived for failing to provide statutorily mandated ante-litem notices to the government entity involved.