Driscoll v. Board of Regents of the University System

Citations: 326 Ga. App. 315; 757 S.E.2d 138; 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 776; 2014 WL 1013845; 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 169Docket: A13A1913

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 18, 2014; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Driscoll, both individually and as administrator of Deborah Driscoll's estate, appeals the dismissal of his tort claims against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. He argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that his ante litem notice did not adequately state the amount of loss as required by the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA) under OCGA § 50-21-26 (a). The court affirms the dismissal after a de novo review of the motion, which is grounded in sovereign immunity. The evidence indicates that Deborah Driscoll was killed on March 4, 2010, when a wheel from a Georgia State University van struck her vehicle. An ante litem notice was sent on February 8, 2011, detailing the claim but failing to specify the amount of damages. A subsequent demand letter in July 2011 included dollar amounts but did not rectify the initial notice's deficiencies. The Board asserted sovereign immunity in their response and moved to dismiss based on noncompliance with ante litem notice requirements. The trial court granted this motion, leading to the appeal. The GTCA permits claims against the State but requires strict compliance with its notice provisions, including the amount of loss claimed. The Supreme Court has established that while strict compliance is necessary, it does not require hyper-technicality if it does not detract from the notice's purpose.

The ante litem notice requirements are designed to provide the State with sufficient notice of a claim to promote settlement prior to litigation. In this case, Driscoll's ante litem notice did not specify any amount of loss, which is a requirement under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA). This omission was significant, especially since the circumstances allowed Driscoll to assign values to his losses within the statutory timeframe. Although the eventual determination of loss may be complex and subject to jury interpretation, the statute mandates that claimants provide an estimate of their losses based on their knowledge and belief. The court underscored that the failure to include this information, even if it may seem harsh, does not permit the court to overlook statutory requirements. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to dismiss Driscoll's claim was upheld, emphasizing that adherence to the GTCA is essential for any tort claims against the State.

In *Myers v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga.*, the court referenced several cases to illustrate standards regarding claimant identification and damages in tort claims. The claimant in *Griggs* successfully specified the accident location on Interstate 285, while in *Cummings*, a misidentification of the responsible agency was noted. The *Myers* case highlighted that an incomplete statement of loss was deemed sufficient when the claimant informed the State about ongoing losses and the uncertainty regarding the full extent of injuries. The excerpt emphasizes that the legislature is assumed to understand existing laws and that damage determination, especially for pain and suffering, is primarily the jury's responsibility, guided by their impartial judgment and conscience.