Background
In March 2021, Kathy Kiser was visiting Savannah when she tripped and fell in a crosswalk on East Bryan Street near the Bryan Street Parking Garage. She sustained serious injuries and, in April 2021, sent an ante litem notice to the City of Savannah as required by OCGA § 36-33-5(b) before suing a municipal corporation. The notice stated that Kiser sustained injuries “when walking in a cross walk located on East Bryan Street near the Bryan Street Parking Garage” and that “the City, through its agents and employees, were negligent causing the fall.”
After a series of communications between the parties, including the City requesting clarification on the injury location, the City ultimately declined to adjust the matter. Kiser filed suit in March 2023. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ante litem notice was insufficiently specific. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, finding the notice failed to adequately state the negligence that caused the injury or the precise location of the incident. Kiser appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Writing for the panel, Judge Davis explained that under OCGA § 36-33-5(b), a plaintiff must provide notice that states the time, place, and extent of the injury, as well as the negligence that caused it. While only “substantial compliance” is required, the notice must still contain enough information to enable the municipality to investigate the claim and determine whether to settle without litigation.
The court found that Kiser’s notice was deficient because it simply alleged the City was “negligent” without specifying what negligent act or omission caused her fall. As the court observed, “there are many possible ways a city’s negligence could cause or contribute to a fall in a crosswalk,” and the generic allegation of negligence lacked the definiteness the statute requires. The court also rejected Kiser’s argument that the City’s eventual ability to investigate her claim demonstrated substantial compliance, citing Pickens v. City of Waco for the proposition that a municipality’s preliminary investigation does not remedy a plaintiff’s failure to comply with the ante litem notice statute.
Key Takeaways
- Georgia’s ante litem notice statute (OCGA § 36-33-5(b)) requires plaintiffs to specify the negligence that caused their injury, not merely allege that the municipality “was negligent.”
- Substantial compliance is the standard, but the notice must still be definite enough to enable the municipality to investigate the claim and decide whether to settle.
- A municipality’s decision to investigate a claim after receiving a deficient notice does not cure the statutory deficiency.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the importance of specificity in ante litem notices under Georgia law. Plaintiffs suing municipalities must do more than assert a general claim of negligence — they must identify the particular negligent act or condition that caused their injury. Practitioners handling personal injury claims against Georgia municipalities should ensure that ante litem notices describe the specific defect, hazard, or negligent conduct at issue, especially where, as in crosswalk falls, multiple potential causes could be at play. The cost of a vague notice is jurisdictional: the lawsuit itself may be barred.