Superior Avenue and North Decatur Road Car Accidents Are So Bad its Named “Killer Corners”
We are representing a woman who sustained a serious brain injury in a violent car accident at the intersection of Superior Ave and North Decatur road. The intersection has been dubbed because vehicles coming down North Decatur cannot see the traffic signal as they approach due to the road geometry and the trees that obscure the signals as one comes down the hill. The City of Decatur itself counts 36 collisions from 2013-2021 and there have been multiple collisions since then.Our client was severely injured in a crash in May 2024 and there have been at least two more crashes since then.
S
o what can a law firm do when you are dealing with a City? Municipalities have varying degrees of legal immunity, depending on what they did wrong.
General Rule: In Georgia, municipalities and their employees generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits arising from their official functions. This includes decisions made by city councils, actions taken by police officers, and operations of public utilities.
Exceptions to Immunity: There are specific scenarios where municipal immunity does not apply:
– Intentional Torts: If a municipality engages in willful misconduct or intentional wrongdoing, immunity may not protect it.
– Negligence: If the municipality fails to perform a ministerial duty—an action that is clearly defined and required by law—there may be grounds for a lawsuit.
That’s how we come to the issue of the negligent design and maintenance of the roadway on North Decatur Road. There are two reasons the City will not have immunity for this.
Negligent Failure to Design and Maintain Safe Public Roads
Cities in Georgia are liable if they negligently maintain their roads and intersections. Sovereign Immunity if waived for the negligent failure to maintain streets and sidewalks in a safe condition.
In Code Section 36-33-1, the General Assembly waived the sovereign immunity of municipalities “[f]or neglect to perform or improper or unskillful performance of their ministerial duties.” O.C.G.A. § 36-33-1 (b). “One such ministerial duty … is the duty of a municipality to maintain city streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel.” Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Herrera, 343 Ga.App. 424, 428 (2017). “[A] city’s liability in this regard is specifically limited by statute as set out in [Code Section] 32-4-93”: A municipality is relieved of any and all liability resulting from or occasioned by defects in the public roads of its municipal street system when it has not been negligent in constructing or maintaining the same or when it has no actual notice thereof or when such defect has not existed for a sufficient length of time for notice thereof to be inferred. Id. (quoting O.C.G.A. § 32-4-93 (a)) (emphasis added). “Thus, ‘[s]tated positively, municipalities generally have a ministerial duty to keep their streets in repair, and they are liable for injuries resulting from defects after actual notice, or after the defect has existed for a sufficient length of time for notice to be inferred.’” Id.
Under this theory of liability, the City of Decatur has itself identified the specific design defect; faulty road geometry and obstacles to the line of sight which prevent drivers on North Decatur Road from realizing they are fast approaching a traffic signal, which causes many drivers to accidentally run the red light.
Nuisance
The City of Decatur maintained a public nuisance by allowing the road geometry and lines of sight to remain for 7 years after it was identified and after it had caused over 30 car accidents.
The Georgia Supreme Court and Appellate Courts have held that municipalities can be sued for personal-injury nuisance claims. See, e.g., Mayor & Page 18 of 33 Council of Waycross v. Houk, 113 Ga. 963, 964-66 (1901); Phillips, 224 Ga. at 837- 38; City of Gainesville v. Pritchett, 129 Ga. App. 475, 475-78 (1973); City of Columbus v. Myszka, 246 Ga. 571, 572-73 (1980). More recently, in Gatto, the Supreme Court confirmed that, “[b]y extending the nuisance doctrine to include personal injuries beyond those tied to the plaintiff’s property, Phillips enlarged the scope of municipalities’ potential liability in nuisance.” Id. at 170 (emphasis added).
A public nuisance doesn’t have to injure every person in a particular area; it need only affect common rights within that area: “[A] public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come Page 25 of 33 within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals.” O.C.G.A. § 41-1-2. “This language is not used in the sense that every person in the area must have been actually hurt or injured in order to show a public nuisance…. It is sufficient if it injures those of the public who may actually come in contact with it. A public nuisance exists if the act complained of affects rights which are common to all within a particular area.” Moreland v. Cheney, 267 Ga. 469, 469 (1997) (emphasis added) (cites modified);
Cases Against Cities in Georgi
While sovereign immunity can be a challenging hurdle, especially with Counties, we have had a lot of success against Cities. One of our cases resulted in a $35 million dollar verdict against the City of Milton in 2023 as the City stubbornly refused to settle for their insurance policy limits.