Columbus v. Preston

• Decision Date: 16 July 1980
• Docket Number: No. 60060,60060
• Citation: Columbus v. Preston, 270 S.E.2d 909, 155 Ga.App. 379 (Ga. App. 1980)
• Parties: COLUMBUS, Georgia v. PRESTON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 909

270 S.E.2d 909

155 Ga.App. 379

COLUMBUS, Georgia v. PRESTON et al.

No. 60060.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued June 5, 1980.

Decided July 16, 1980.

Lennie F. Davis, E. H. Polleys, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.

Michael Agnew, Columbus, for appellees.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

On the evening of February 12, 1976, William T. Preston was driving his automobile on Steam Mill Road, located in Columbus, Muscogee County, Georgia. His automobile overturned and he received certain personal injuries as a result thereof. Preston contends that he struck an obstruction at or near the intersection of Steam Mill Road and Pinecrest Drive where the pavement along Steam Mill Road ended, leaving considerable rough terrain (deep gulleys, holes and rocks), which condition had existed a sufficient time for the City to be aware of its dangerous condition. Columbus, however, insists that Preston overturned his vehicle when he either hit a soft shoulder of the road or a part of the curb.

Preston and his wife promptly filed the ante litem notice required by Code Ann. § 69-308 (Ga.L. 1953, Nov.Sess., p. 338; 1956, pp. 183, 184) as to the personal injuries he received by virtue of the defects in the street owned and maintained by the municipal corporation and the fact that his wife also claimed damages for loss of consortium sustained by her by virtue of the injuries to her husband, stating therein the time, place and extent of their injuries "as nearly as practicable, and the negligence which caused the same."

Suit was filed by William T. Preston and Mary A. Preston against Columbus, Georgia, seeking damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium, respectively, resulting from the dangerous and unsafe condition of the street, alleging the defendant had notice and knowledge of same and had failed to exercise proper care and maintenance, or that it should have had notice and knowledge of said defects for several months prior to the grievance herein. The defendant denied the claim, and a trial was held in which the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding William T. Preston the sum of $5,000 and Mary A. Preston the sum of $2,500. The judgment followed the verdict, and defendant appeals. Held :

1. Defendant contends first that the trial court erred in concluding that the letter notice constituted proper ante litem notice as required by Code Ann. § 69-308, supra. However, the statute does not contemplate that the notice shall be drawn with all technical niceties but must simply give the municipality notice of the grievance against it. It is necessary only that the municipality shall be put on notice as to the general character of the complaint, that is, in a general way as to the time, place, and extent of the injury, "as near as practicable." See Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 590, 592(11, 12), 600, 45 S.E. 486; City of Atlanta v. Fuller, 118 Ga.App. 563, 564, 164 S.E.2d 364; City of Atlanta v. Frank, 120 Ga.App. 273(1), 170 S.E.2d 265. Defendant's contention that the notice was insufficient in describing in great detail the type of negligence as "without adequate warning signs and protective barriers" and the cause of action was thereafter changed to failure to remove obstructions is not meritorious.

2. The remaining enumerations of error contend that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict and in thereafter entering a judgment on the verdict of the jury. However, the evidence was sufficient to show that defects existed in the roadbed of Steam Mill Road for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have had notice thereof and that the area of Steam Mill Road where the incident occurred was a street in Columbus, Georgia, and all questions of fact in regard thereto were for the sole determination of the jury. See City of Atlanta v. Pittman, 70 Ga.App. 507, 28 S.E.2d 667. The City contended Steam Mill Road was closed at the Fort Benning Reservation. The City's Chief of the Traffic Engineering Division testified that he didn't know when but he assumed "the Fort Benning military...