The Court of Appeals of Georgia has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the City of Atlanta stemming from a car accident involving a city fire truck. The ruling centers on whether the injured party, Ugochukwu Okeke, properly notified the city about his claim, a crucial step before suing a municipality.
The Core of the Dispute: Ante Litem Notice
The case hinges on something called an “ante litem notice.” In simple terms, this is a written notice that someone must send to a city before they can sue it for damages, like those from a car accident. This notice gives the city a heads-up about the claim and allows it to investigate. Georgia law, specifically OCGA § 36-33-5, outlines the rules for this notice. One key rule is who the notice must be sent to.
What Happened in This Case?
Okeke was injured in a car accident involving a City of Atlanta fire truck on June 24, 2020. He then attempted to comply with the law by sending two ante litem notices. The first notice, sent on July 1, 2020, was addressed to the “City of Atlanta Mayor’s Office, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Attn: Joshua Williams.” The second notice, sent on November 25, 2020, was addressed to “City of Atlanta, Mayor’s Office, Attn: Amber Robinson,” an attorney with the City’s Law Department.
Okeke later filed a lawsuit against the City of Atlanta seeking damages for his injuries. However, the City argued that Okeke hadn’t followed the rules for the ante litem notice, specifically the part about who the notice should be sent to. The trial court agreed, and dismissed Okeke’s case.
What the Law Says About Notice
The law, OCGA § 36-33-5 (f), states that the ante litem notice “shall be served upon the mayor or the chairperson of the city council or city commission.” This means the notice must be delivered to the mayor or the head of the city council, either in person or by certified mail.
The Court’s Reasoning: Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Adherence
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case using a “de novo” standard, meaning they looked at the case as if they were the first court to hear it. They had to decide if the lower court was correct in dismissing the case.
The court referenced a recent Georgia Supreme Court case, *Fleureme v. City of Atlanta*, which clarified how strictly the ante litem notice requirements must be followed. The Supreme Court said that “substantial compliance” with the law is sufficient, meaning a plaintiff doesn’t have to be perfect, but they must still meet the core requirements of the law. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that the notice had to be addressed by name to the mayor, but emphasized that the notice must still be delivered to the office of the mayor.
In Okeke’s case, the court found that he did not substantially comply with the law. Neither of his notices were sent to the mayor or the chairperson of the city council. Instead, they were sent to the Chief Operating Officer and a City Attorney. The court ruled that sending the notices to these individuals was not enough to meet the requirements of the law.
The Outcome
Because Okeke did not properly serve the ante litem notice as required by law, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss his lawsuit against the City of Atlanta.