Hicks v. City of Albany. A25A2140 February 26 (2026)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Georgia (GA)
Court
Georgia Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Gobeil (J.); Davis (J.)
Opinion
Per curiam
Hicks v. City of Albany, --- S.E.2d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 537755Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.Court of Appeals of Georgia.HICKSv.CITY OF ALBANY.A25A2140|February 26, 2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Attorneys and Law FirmsRobert Mason Beauchamp, Jessica Carol Idlett, for Appellant.Sun S. Choy, Jacob Edward Daly, Atlanta, Deboshree P. Das,for Appellee.OpinionRickman, Presiding Judge.*1 Edwin Hicks appeals the trial court's order granting theCity of Albany's motion to dismiss his negligence actionagainst the City for injuries he sustained when he stepped ona stormwater drainage intake lid in his yard, the lid dislodged,and he fell into the stormwater drainage system. He contendsthat the trial court erred in concluding that his ante litem noticeto the City was insufficient. For the reasons set forth below,we affirm.Our review of the grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint isde novo. Picklesimer v. City of Eatonton, 356 Ga. App. 504,504, 847 S.E.2d 863 (2020). “In lawsuits against municipalcorporations, the giving of the ante litem notice in the mannerand within the time required by the statute is a conditionprecedent to the maintenance of a suit on the claim.” Hall v.City of Blakely, 361 Ga. App. 135, 136, 863 S.E.2d 393 (2021)(punctuation omitted).The issue on appeal is whether Hicks's ante litem noticesufficiently identified the negligence that caused the injury, asrequired by OCGA § 36-33-5(b). Hicks's ante litem notice tothe City stated, in pertinent part:On or about August 12, 2024, Mr.Hicks was mowing his lawn at1610 Whispering Pines Road, Albany,Georgia when he stepped onto thecorner of a stormwater drain ... intakelid, owned and maintained by the Cityof Albany, and it dislodged causinghim to fall into the intake system ....When Mr. Hicks’ fall stopped, hecould barely see above the edge. Mr.Hicks had to pull his six foot fourinch, three-hundred-pound frame outof the stormwater drain by the sheerforce of will. As a result, Mr. Hickssuffered injuries to his back, bothknees, right wrist, and a completeshoulder dislocation .... The purpose ofthis letter is to comply with the antelitem notice requirements .... Whileour investigation is still ongoing, thespecific dollar amount sought by myclient for his injuries is One Millionand 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00).If you contend this letter does notprovide you with sufficient noticepursuant to OCGA § 36-33-5, orcomply with said statute, please adviseme immediately in writing, and we willcorrect any deficiencies.1When the City failed to respond to his notice, Hicks filed suit,alleging negligence by the City in numerous respects. TheCity moved to dismiss the complaint based on Hicks's failureto provide proper ante litem notice. The trial court grantedthe City's motion, concluding that Hicks's ante litem noticefailed to describe the negligence that caused his injuries andrejecting Hicks's alternative argument that he was not requiredto describe the City's negligence because the doctrine of resipsa loquitur was applicable. This appeal followed.
Hicks v. City of Albany, --- S.E.2d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Prior to filing a suit against a municipality for personal injuryor property damage, a claimant must provide written noticeof the claim “to the governing authority of the municipalcorporation,” and such notice must include “the time, place,and extent of the injury, as nearly as practicable, and thenegligence which caused the injury.” OCGA § 36-33-5(b).We recognize that “the ante litem notice provision of OCGA§ 36-33-5 is in derogation of common law, which didnot require pre-suit notice, [and that it] it must be strictlyconstrued and not extended beyond its plain and explicitterms.” West v. City of Albany, 300 Ga. 743, 745, 797 S.E.2d809 (2017). In addition, substantial compliance with therequirements imposed by OCGA § 36-33-5(b) is all that isrequired. Wallace v. City of Atlanta, 368 Ga. App. 260, 264(1),(889 S.E.2d 438) (2023); see also Fleureme v. City of Atlanta,322 Ga. 180, 186(2)(b), 917 S.E.2d 593 (2025) (recognizingprecedent establishing that “substantial compliance with themunicipal ante litem notice statute is all that is required”)(punctuation omitted).*2 The ante litem notice, however, must provide sufficientinformation “to enable the municipality to conduct aninvestigation into the alleged injuries and determine if theclaim should be settled without litigation.” Davis v. Cityof Forsyth, 275 Ga. App. 747, 748(1), 621 S.E.2d 495(2005). And “where the notice fails to identify what allegednegligence on the part of the municipality caused the incidentforming the basis for the plaintiff's claim,” the notice is notsufficiently definite “to enable the municipality to inquire intothe alleged injuries and determine whether the claim shallbe adjusted without suit.” Wallace, 368 Ga. App. at 264(1),889 S.E.2d 438 (punctuation omitted). See Colvin v. Cityof Thomasville, 269 Ga. App. 173, 174-75(1), 603 S.E.2d536 (2004) (recognizing that substantial compliance standardrequires that ante litem notice contain a statement identifyingwhat alleged negligence on the part of the city caused theincident); see also West, 300 Ga. at 746, 797 S.E.2d 809(statutory language requiring claimant to state “the negligencewhich caused the injury” makes clear “that the municipal antelitem statute contemplates an injury sustained as a result of anegligent act or omission”).In this case, Hicks argues that his notice complied with thestatutory requirements. His notice stated that he fell when hestepped on the stormwater drainage intake lid, which he statedwas owned and maintained by the City, but he did not indicatewhat negligence on the part of the City he alleged caused hisinjuries. And despite Hicks's counsel's request that the Citynotify her if the notice failed to comply with the requirementsof OCGA § 36-33-5, nothing in the statute imposes suchan obligation on the City. Pickens v. City of Waco, 352Ga. App. 37, 44(2)(a), 833 S.E.2d 713 (2019). Under thecircumstances, the trial court did not err in concludingthat the notice failed to comply with OCGA § 36-33-5(b).Compare Wallace, 368 Ga. App. at 265(1), 889 S.E.2d 438(upholding trial court's determination that ante litem noticefailed to substantially comply with OCGA § 36-33-5(b)when it contained no allegations of negligence by the city)and City of Moultrie v. Price, 310 Ga. App. 672, 673, 713S.E.2d 880 (2011) (finding that plaintiff failed to substantiallycomply with ante litem statute requirements when none ofthe information sent to the city's insurer indicated that theincident was caused by the city's negligence) with Columbusv. Preston, 155 Ga. App. 379, 380(1), 270 S.E.2d 909 (1980)(concluding that ante litem notice sufficiently described city'snegligence in causing personal injuries when plaintiff's caroverturned on a road “without adequate warning signs andprotective barriers”) and City of Atlanta v. Hawkins, 45 Ga.App. 847, 850, 166 S.E. 262 (1932) (concluding that antelitem notice sufficiently stated the negligence that causedthe damages claimed where the notice stated, “plaintiff wasinjured on May 14, 1931, by stepping on a lid of a water meteron the east side of North Boulevard just a few feet north ofGreenwood Avenue, and that this lid was defective and gaveway, causing her injuries”).Alternatively, Hicks argues that it was not necessary for himto provide specific detail about what alleged negligence bythe City caused his injuries because the doctrine of res ipsaloquitur applies.2 We disagree.Res ipsa loquitur is a rule ofevidence to be applied in cases wherethere is no evidence of consequenceshowing negligence on the part ofthe defendant. The doctrine authorizes,but does not require, the jury to inferfacts from the circumstances in whichthe injury occurred, thereby filling theevidentiary gap.Battlefield Invs. v. City of Lafayette, 326 Ga. App. 405,406(1), 756 S.E.2d 639 (2014) (punctuation omitted). “Inother words, the principal basis for application of the ruleis that the occurrence involved would not have occurred butfor negligence, and this negligence may properly be charged
Hicks v. City of Albany, --- S.E.2d ---- (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3to the person in exclusive control of the instrumentality.”Matthews v. Yoplait USA, Inc., 352 Ga. App. 591, 594, 835S.E.2d 393 (2019) (punctuation omitted).*3 The elements of res ipsa loquitur are well settled: (1) theinjury is of a type that ordinarily does not occur in the absenceof someone's negligence; (2) the injury must be caused byan agency or instrumentality within the defendant's exclusivecontrol; and (3) the injury must not have been caused by anyvoluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.Battlefield Invs., 326 Ga. App. at 406(1), 756 S.E.2d 639. Thedoctrine “should be applied with caution and only in extremecases.” Id. (punctuation omitted).Pretermitting whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur couldbe utilized to satisfy the negligence component of the antelitem notice requirements, in this case, the second elementof the doctrine was not met because the stormwater drainageintake lid located in Hicks's yard was not within the City'sexclusive control. See generally National Surety Corp. v.Georgia Power Co., No. 2:17-CV-68-RWS, slip op. at 7(N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2019) (2019 WL 4394403) (barn's electricmeter was not in the exclusive control of Georgia Power);Westmoreland v. Walgreen Co., 362 Ga. App. 119, 122, 866S.E.2d 832 (2021) (six-pack of beer was not in Walgreens'sexclusive control because package was within reach ofother customers); Williams v. American Med. Systems, 248Ga. App. 682, 685(2), 548 S.E.2d 371 (2001) (implantedinflatable penile prosthesis was not under the exclusivecontrol of the manufacturer).Thus, the trial court did not err in concluding that the doctrineof res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable here, and Hicks was notrelieved of the obligation to describe the negligence thatcaused him injury.Judgment affirmed.Gobeil and Davis, JJ., concur.All Citations--- S.E.2d ----, 2026 WL 537755Footnotes1The notice states that photographs of the stormwater drainage intake are attached, but no such photographsare included in the appellate record.2In his initial brief on appeal, Hicks cited two cases we could not locate, either by case name or citation. Thosecases are Knight v. Pierson, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 514 (1992), and City of LaGrange v. Bolden, 261 Ga. 77(1991). Although the City pointed out the inaccurate citation to the Knight case in its response brief, Hicksdid not provide an explanation as to the cause of these fake case citations until this Court issued an orderrequiring Hicks to do so. Because counsel for Hicks has now taken responsibility and apologized for heractions in citing to nonexistent cases, which she believes came from an AI platform, we decline to issuesanctions. We recognize, however, that this troubling practice has become far too common and caution thebar that the failure to ensure the accuracy of filings in this Court may subject counsel to sanctions. See, e.g.,Shahid v. Esaam, 376 Ga. App. 145, 149-50(1), 918 S.E.2d 198 (2025); Court of Appeals Rule 7.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access