Knowles v. Housing Authority of City of Columbus, 36220

• Decision Date: 20 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 36220,No. 1,36220,1
• Parties: Tommie Lee KNOWLES v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF COLUMBUS
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 55

94 S.E.2d 55

94 Ga.App. 182

Tommie Lee KNOWLES v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF COLUMBUS.

No. 36220.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 20, 1956.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1956.

Syllabus by the Court.

The functions of the defendant housing authority were governmental in nature and therefore the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Mrs. Tommie Lee Knowles brought an action against the Housing Authority of the City of Columbus, Georgia, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia for injuries allegedly received as the result of the negligence of the defendant. The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the plaintiff's petition as finally amended. The trial court on the hearing of the demurrers sustained the general demurrer on the ground that no cause of action would lie against the defendant for an alleged tort. The plaintiff excepts to the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer.

Charles A. Hughey, Vincent P. McCauley, Columbus, for plaintiff in error.

W. M. Page, Swift, Pease, Davidson & Chapman, Columbus, for defendant in error.

NICHOLS, Judge.

In Hall v. Hospital Authority of Floyd County, 93 Ga.App. 319, 91 S.E.2d 530, it was held that a tort action could not be maintained against a hospital authority even though the act creating the public body corporate and politic provided that it could sue and be sued. The basis of the decision was that the functions of the authority were governmental in nature. The decision was not based on the wording of the act which stated that the functions were governmental in nature, but rather on the fact that the function, to wit: furnishing medical care and hospitalization for the indigent sick and poor, was a governmental function. Therefore, if the functions of the housing authority in the present case are governmental in nature then no action sounding in tort can be maintained against it althought the act of 1937, supra, Ga.L. 1937, p. 210 et seq., Code Ann., § 99-1115, provides that housing authorities may sue and be sued.

'The preservation of the public health is a governmental function.' Barr v. City Council of Augusta, 206 Ga. 750(1), 58 S.E.2d 820, 822, citing Love v. Atlanta, 95 Ga. 129, 133, 22 S.E. 29. The Act of 1937, supra, Ga.L.1937, pp. 210, 211, Code Ann., § 99-1102, declared the need for housing authorities, stating that there existed in the State, 'insanitary or unsafe dwelling accommodations and that persons of low income are forced to reside in such insanitary or unsafe accommodations; that within the State there is a shortage of safe or sanitary dwelling accommodations available at rents which persons of low income can afford and that such persons are...