Thompson v. City of Fitzgerald
Decision Date | 07 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. A01A0115.,A01A0115. |
Citation | 248 Ga. App. 725,548 S.E.2d 368 |
Parties | THOMPSON et al. v. CITY OF FITZGERALD et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Salter, Shook & Craig, Mitchell M. Shook, Valdosta, Jason A. Craig, for appellants. Whelchel, Whelchel & Carlton, James C. Whelchel, Moultrie, Walters, Davis & Pujadas, J. Harvey Davis, Ocilla, for appellees.
Following a period of heavy rains, seven-year-old Shonda Thompson fell into the swollen waters of a creek which runs adjacent to her home and drowned. Rosie Thompson and Clark Thompson, as parents of Shonda and as administrators of her estate, and Thomas Everett, as temporary administrator of the estate of Clark Thompson, sued the City of Fitzgerald and the Fitzgerald Water Department. The City of Fitzgerald moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appeal the trial court's order. Because no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the City of Fitzgerald's liability, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the City.
If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.4
In the present case, the evidence shows that the City of Fitzgerald did not own the creek or have legal control of the property surrounding the creek. While the City occasionally cleaned out or dredged the creek when it became clogged and caused flooding to adjacent property, this action was performed only at the request of those landowners. However, the City did not and does not otherwise maintain the creek. In addition, although some of the City's drainage system flows into the creek, since it is the low point in that area of town, there is no evidence that the City has done anything to cause the volume of water in the creek to exceed that which would naturally occur.
1. The appellants claim that the trial court erred in granting the City of Fitzgerald's motion for summary judgment on the issue of negligence. Since there is no evidence of causation in this case, the trial court did not err.
In this case, the direct cause of Shonda's death was drowning resulting from a large quantity of swiftly flowing water. The question to be answered is whether any act or omission on the part of the City of Fitzgerald reasonably contributed, wholly or partly, to the situation which caused Shonda's death. To answer this question we must look to the evidence and determine (1) the cause of the creek's increased volume and (2) who was in control of the creek and responsible for its maintenance.
As to the cause of the creek's increased volume, the appellants provided evidence that the City's drainage system ultimately finds its way into the creek. However, the appellants failed to provide any evidence showing that this design is flawed or that this design causes or contributes to the creek's increased water level beyond that which would occur naturally. There is also no evidence that the City's action in occasionally cleaning out the creek at the request of adjacent landowners in any way contributed to Shonda's death.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the City neither owned nor had legal control of the creek. The appellants have failed to produce any evidence suggesting that the City had a right to possess or exercise dominion over the creek. Thus, there was no basis for the City's liability at any time other than when it was physically present on the property.7 The trial court did not err in granting the City of Fitzgerald's motion for summary judgment on this ground.
2. The appellants claim that the trial court erred in granting the City of Fitzgerald's motion for summary judgment on the issue of public nuisance. This contention fails because the creation or maintenance of a nuisance chargeable to the City cannot exist absent action by the City or a failure to act when under a legal duty to do so.
The Supreme Court has set out three guidelines to define a nuisance for which a city may be held liable.8 First, the defect or degree of misfeasance must be to such a degree as would exceed the concept of mere negligence. Second, the act must be of some duration, and the maintenance of the act or defect must be continuous or regularly repetitious. Third, the city must have failed to act within a reasonable time after knowledge of the defect or dangerous condition.
The defect or misfeasance alleged by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. 3M
...it is sufficient if the public nuisance injures those of the public who may actually come into contact with it." Thompson v. City of Fitzgerald , 248 Ga.App. 725, 548 S.E.2d 368 370 (2001). A public nuisance generally gives no right of action to an individual absent a showing of special dam......
-
Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Herrera
...must have failed to act within a reasonable time after knowledge of the defect or dangerous condition. Thompson v. City of Fitzgerald, 248 Ga. App. 725, 727 (2), 548 S.E.2d 368 (2001) ; City of Bowman v. Gunnells, 243 Ga. 809 (2), 256 S.E.2d 782 (1979).The City argues that its tree on the r......
-
Albertson v. City of Jesup
...“one would almost have to know that a regulatory sign is positioned on Bay Street at the intersection.” 4. Thompson v. City of Fitzgerald, 248 Ga.App. 725, 725, 548 S.E.2d 368 (2001) (footnote omitted). 5. Id. at 725–26, 548 S.E.2d 368 (footnote and punctuation omitted). 6. Id. at 726, 548 ......
-
White v. Georgia Power Co.
...erased [the mothers'] public nuisance cause of action." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id.; see Thompson v. City of Fitzgerald, 248 Ga.App. 725, 728(2), 548 S.E.2d 368 (2001). Moreover, the defendants were under no obligation to put up barricades or warning signs. Spooner, supra, 256 ......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...omitted). The court, thus, affirmed the trial judge's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment. Id., 545 S.E.2d at 628. 144. 248 Ga. App. 725, 548 S.E.2d 368 (2001). 145. Id. at 726-27, 548 S.E.2d at 369-70. 146. Id. at 726, 548 S.E.2d at 369. "[T]he evidence shows that the City . . ......