Englander v. City of East Point

• Decision Date: 16 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 50744,No. 1,50744,1
• Citation: Englander v. City of East Point, 218 S.E.2d 161, 135 Ga.App. 487 (Ga. App. 1975)
• Parties: Charles ENGLANDER, Jr. v. CITY OF EAST POINT
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 161

218 S.E.2d 161

135 Ga.App. 487

Charles ENGLANDER, Jr. v.CITY OF EAST POINT.

No. 50744.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

July 16, 1975.

Scott Walters, Jr., East Point, for appellant.

Smith, Robertson & Sparrow, George N. Sparrow, Jr., East Point, George T. Smith, Marietta, for appellee.

BELL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff in his complaint alleged that the defendant city 'negligently maintained a public street . . . in that said street was a dead end street, with no signs and no barricade' and that as a result of the 'improper maintainence'plaintiff drove his motorcycle off the end of the street damaging his vehicle.The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Held:

It is obvious that plaintiff bases his complaint against the city because of its failure to place signs or barricades on a dead end street which would warn an individual of the character of the street.Deciding whether to erect or not to erect a traffic control sign or to maintain it after installation is an exercise of a governmental function by a municipality and it is not liable for any negligent performance of this function.Town of Fort Oglethorpe v. Phillips, 224 Ga. 834, 165 S.E.2d 141;Arthur v. City of Albany, 98 Ga.App. 746, 106 S.E.2d 347;Lundy v. City Council of Augusta, 51 Ga.App. 655, 181[135 Ga.App. 488] S.E. 237.Nor would the lack of a sign or barricade fall within the category of a defect or obstruction of the street so as to constitute the function ministerial within Code§ 69-303 as the defect or obstructions...