Ga. Dep't of Transp. v. Balamo, A17A0765
Citation | 343 Ga.App. 169,806 S.E.2d 622 |
Decision Date | 16 October 2017 |
Docket Number | A17A0765 |
Parties | The GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. BALAMO. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Loretta L. Pinkston-Pope, Robert L. Bunner, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. Adams, Jordan & Herrington, D. James Jordan, Caroline W. Herrington ; Shane M. Geeter, for appellee.
Samuel Che Balamo sued the Georgia Department of Transportation ("GDOT") after he was injured when he lost control of his car on a wet road in 2005. GDOT moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity or, alternatively, for summary judgment on the ground that Balamo had not established the elements of negligence. The trial court denied both motions, and this interlocutory appeal ensued.1 We conclude that Balamo's claims are barred by sovereign immunity and thus the trial court should have dismissed Balamo's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse.
(Punctuation and citation omitted.) Ga. Dept. of Corrections v. James, 312 Ga. App. 190, 193, 718 S.E.2d 55 (2011), overruled on other grounds, Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 778, n. 7, 784 S.E.2d 775 (2016) ; Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668, 673 (1) (b), 570 S.E.2d 1 (2002) ().
So viewed, the record shows that around 5:50 a.m. on November 29, 2005, Balamo was driving toward Milledgeville on State Route 24 on his way to work. It was raining at the time, and he was driving between 40 and 45 mph. As the rain increased, Balamo tried to slow down, applying the brakes as he began to travel downhill. Nevertheless, he lost control of the truck, crossed into oncoming traffic, and collided with a tractor-trailer. As a result of this accident, Balamo was seriously injured.
Balamo sued GDOT under the Georgia Tort Claims Act ("GTCA"), OCGA § 50–21–20 et seq., alleging in his complaint negligent road design and operation. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit from an expert, Herman Hill, opining that the road failed to comply with accepted standards for design and maintenance. GDOT moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it was immune from suits based on negligent design of the roadway under OCGA § 50–21–24 (10). Alternatively, GDOT moved for summary judgment on the elements of negligence. The trial court denied the motions, and this interlocutory appeal followed.
1. In its first enumeration of error, GDOT argues that Balamo's claim is one for negligent design of the road and, as such, is barred by sovereign immunity. We agree.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Pelham v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 321 Ga. App. 791, 793 (1), 743 S.E.2d 469 (2013). The GTCA waives the state's sovereign immunity for torts committed by state officers and employees acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. OCGA § 50–21–23. The conditions and limitations of a statute that waives immunity must be strictly followed. Ga. Dept. of Labor v. RTT Assoc., Inc., 299 Ga. 78, 83 (2), 786 S.E.2d 840 (2016).
OCGA § 50–21–24 (10).
Whether GDOT is entitled to sovereign immunity based on the design exception in OCGA § 50–21–24 (10), "is a threshold issue that the trial court was required to address before reaching the merits of any other argument." (Citation omitted.) Gonzalez v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 329 Ga. App. 224, 225, 764 S.E.2d 462 (2014) ; Sadler v. Dept. of Transp. of the State of Ga., 311 Ga. App. 601, 603, 716 S.E.2d 639 (2011). "[I]f [GDOT] is entitled to immunity under ... OCGA § 50–21–24 (10), then the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to try the negligence claims, and the suit must be dismissed." Gonzalez, supra, 329 Ga. App. at 225–226, 764 S.E.2d 462.
As the party seeking to overcome the state's immunity, Balamo bore the burden of showing that an exception to immunity applied. See Diamond, supra, 326 Ga. App. at 190 (1), 756 S.E.2d 277. To avoid application of immunity under OCGA § 50–21–24 (10), Balamo must submit "expert testimony or other competent evidence ... to show that the plan or design was not prepared in substantial compliance with generally accepted engineering or design standards at the time such plan was prepared." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dupree, supra, 256 Ga. App. at 677 (2), 570 S.E.2d 1. See also Murray v. Dept. of Transp., 240 Ga. App. 285, 285–286, 523 S.E.2d 367 (1999) ( ) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[n]ot only does [ OCGA § 50–21–24 (10) ] exempt [G]DOT from liability for highway design deficiencies where the highway was initially designed in substantial compliance with existing design standards, it exempts [G]DOT from liability for its failure to upgrade a highway to meet current design standards." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Cox, 246 Ga. App. 221, 223, 540 S.E.2d 218 (2000). As we have explained:
In determining the extent of the [G]DOT's liability under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, we must construe its provisions in a manner that will uphold it in every part. Under this rule of construction, we find that if the [G]DOT is exempt from liability for its initial design of a highway under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, it would make little sense to permit liability for failing to change that initial design. Allowing liability in such cases would effectively eliminate the protection provided the [G]DOT under OCGA § 50–21–24 (10).
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id.
Here, the expert testified that during a resurfacing project in 2000, the roadway's cross slopes2 should have been increased to enable water to drain off the roadway more quickly. Admittedly, the 2000 project called for an increase in the cross slopes in the relevant area.3 The expert, however, did not testify that the cross slope of the road following the 2000 resurfacing project failed to meet industry design standard. In fact, although the expert opined that the relevant portion of the roadway should exceed the minimum industry design standard, he admitted that the cross slopes as designed met the minimum industry standards. Moreover, the expert testified that he did not know the actual calculations of the cross slope in the relevant section of the highway.
The trial court found that GDOT was not entitled to immunity. We cannot agree. First, Balamo has offered no testimony that the design of the roadway was negligent, despite the allegation in his complaint that "the excessive amounts of rainwater ... were caused by the negligent design, construction and operation" of the highway. (Emphasis supplied.) Instead, the expert testified that the design was "fine," but the maintenance of the road was an issue. It is Balamo's burden to establish a design defect through expert testimony. Where, as here, the expert fails to connect the accident to any design flaw, Balamo has not met his burden. See Diamond, supra, 326 Ga. App. at 190 (1), 756 S.E.2d 277 ; Dupree, supra, 256 Ga. App. at 677 (2), 570 S.E.2d 1. If Balamo had met his burden of providing evidence of a design flaw, this would be a different case.
Further, the expert's attempted characterization of the issue as maintenance rather than design is not only inconsistent with Balamo's allegations in his complaint, it is inconsistent with the expert's own testimony. The expert essentially opined that GDOT should have changed the geometric design of the road by increasing the cross slopes. But this is not a maintenance issue. Cox, supra, 246 Ga. App. at 2234, 540 S.E.2d 218 ( ); see also Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Crooms, 316 Ga. App. 536, 537, 729 S.E.2d 660 (2012) ( )(physical precedent only), overruled on other grounds by Rivera, supra, 298 Ga. at 778, n. 7, 784 S.E.2d 775. The essence of Balamo's claim is that GDOT negligently designed the road, and he cannot avoid the State's immunity simply by describing it as something else. Dept of Transp. v. Jarvie, 329 Ga. App. 681, 685, 766...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson
...that sovereign immunity is waived and the extent of such waiver.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ga. Dept. of Transp. v. Balamo , 343 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1), 806 S.E.2d 622 (2017). The doctrine of sovereign immunity requires that the conditions and limitations of the statute that waives i......
-
Roads to Nowhere in Four States: State and Local Governments in the Atlantic Southeast Facing Sea-Level Rise
...Ct. App. 2012) ( overruled on diferent grounds by Rivera v. Washington, 784 S.E.2d 775 (Ga. 2016)); Georgia Dep’t of Transp. v. Balamo, 806 S.E.2d 622, 624 (2017), cert. denied (May 7, 2018). 8-2020 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 50 ELR 10661 Copyright © 2020 Environmental Law Institute®, Washi......
-
Torts
...Id. at 883, 798 S.E.2d at 692.24. Id. at 886-87, 798 S.E.2d at 694-95 (Ellington, J., dissenting).25. O.C.G.A. § 50-21-24(10) (2019).26. 343 Ga. App. 169, 806 S.E.2d 622 (2017).27. Id. at 170-71, 806 S.E.2d at 623-24.28. Id. at 173-74, 806 S.E.2d at 626.29. Id. at 174, 806 S.E.2d at 626. 30......