In the recent court of appeals opinion in City of Ashburn v. Ivie Mini Warehouses, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 306 (2011), the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the six (6) month ante litem notice that applies against municipalities in relation to a claim involving the collapse of a brick wall on one property on to another. The court held that in instances where the event causing injury is a single occurrence, the injury triggers the ante litem notice period on the date of the event. Accordingly, the claims of the plaintiff in the case were barred because the plaintiff did not send a notice of its intent to file suit for its injuries to the city until more than six (6) months after a wall collapsed on to its property. The continuing injury theory of nuisance and trespass was not applicable since the wall collapsed an ended the tort with damages. The theory of tolling did not apply because the plaintiff knew of the injury almost immediately on the date of the wall collapse.
The opinion in City of Ashburn, involves facts that clearly explain the application of the ante litem notice to continuing torts as opposed to torts that arise from single events.
A Blog about Real Estate, How it Can Be Damaged, and Disputes Over its Transfer
This blog is a personal blog written to discuss legal issues affecting Georgia property, and how it is damaged, transferred, and fought over. I write this partly to keep abreast of the law, and partly to offer a forum for my writing. In order to find content, I often analyze Georgia Supreme Court decisions. I try to update this blog as I can, but writing is a time consuming process.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
In the recent Georgia Court of Appeals opinion in Landings Ass'n, Inc. v. Williams, Case Nos. A10A1955, A10A1956. (Ga. App., March 25, 2011), the surviving relatives of a woman sued a property owners association for nuisance and other claims arising out of a fatal alligator attack. Among other things, the court dismissed the nuisance claim holding that a nuisance claim arises where a use or lack of maintenance of one person's property interferes with another person's ownership of another tract. The court held the agent causing injury must emanate from the defendant's property. In that case, the alligator was not deemed to be such an agent of injury even though the evidence indicated the alligator may have lived in the association's lagoon.
Posted by Stuart Teague at 3:52 AM