Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in an appeal from a judgment in favor of a plaintiff in her lawsuit against the City of Atlanta. The woman filed a lawsuit to recover for damages she incurred after driving into an open manhole. The woman contended that the government should be liable for her injuries because the manhole was a public nuisance. The city appealed a jury finding in favor of the woman, arguing that the woman did not meet her evidentiary burden.
Under Georgia law, a municipality “may be held liable for damages it causes to a third party from the operation or maintenance of a nuisance, irrespective of whether it is exercising a governmental or municipal function.” To recover for damages plaintiffs must present evidence that:
- The severity of the defect is a result of conduct that exceeds mere negligence;
- The conduct or condition was long-lasting and continuous or repetitive; and
- The government entity failed to act within a reasonable amount of time after becoming aware of the dangerous condition.
In most situations, a fact-finder must determine whether the plaintiff meets their evidentiary burden; however, in some cases, it is a question of law. Courts may grant a party a motion for a directed verdict in instances where there is no conflict regarding any genuine issue of material fact.
In this case, during the trial, the plaintiff presented photographic evidence that illustrated the deteriorating condition of the manhole. The municipality argued that they do not regularly inspect manholes unless someone reports an issue with them. Here, the city checked the manhole about seven years before the incident and but claimed they had no other reports of its condition.
The court found that the photograph of the deteriorating condition of the manhole was taken a year after the incident, and there is no evidence establishing the manhole’s unsafe condition at the time of the accident. In response, the plaintiff argued that a jury could presume the manhole’s condition because the city only inspects these defects if there is a complaint. However, the court reasoned that the spoliation presumption only applies in exceptional cases involving bad faith. Moreover, the court found that even if they assumed the defect was the open manhole itself, the plaintiff still failed to demonstrate that the condition was open and continuous or that the city had knowledge of its deteriorating state. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling and found in favor of the defendant.
Have You Suffered Injuries on a Public or Government Property?
If you or someone you know has suffered serious injuries because of the negligence of a government entity or individual, you should contact McAleer Law to discuss your rights and remedies. The attorneys at our law firm understand the significant burden that injury victims face when trying to recover for their damages against a government entity. We have a long history of successfully overcoming these challenges and getting Georgia car accident victims the compensation they deserve. Cases involving government entities require plaintiffs to follow strict procedural and evidentiary rules, and you should contact our office to reduce the risk of dismissal. Our law firm continues to diligently represent clients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Contact our office at 404-622-5337 to schedule your free initial consultation with a lawyer at our office.