Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this chapter, the term:
(Code 1981, §36-92-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 579, § 3.)
- For annual survey on local government law, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 205 (2013).
§ 33-24-51(b). - In determining if a county waived the county's sovereign immunity through the voluntary purchase of liability insurance under the second sentence of O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b), a trial court erred in considering the definition of "motor vehicle" provided in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1; rather, "any motor vehicle" was defined as a vehicle that was capable of being driven on the public roads that was covered by a liability insurance policy purchased by the county. Glass v. Gates, 311 Ga. App. 563, 716 S.E.2d 611 (2011), aff'd, 291 Ga. 350, 729 S.E.2d 361 (2012).
- When a local entity purchases automobile liability insurance in an amount greater than the prescribed limits set forth for a waiver of sovereign immunity under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1 et seq., the entity waives sovereign immunity to the extent of the entity's insurance coverage as required by O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b), and the broad definition of "any motor vehicle" set forth in § 33-24-51 applies. Therefore, in a wrongful death and survivor case, a county waived sovereign immunity to the extent of the county's insurance coverage as required by O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b), and the Georgia legislature did not intend to apply a narrow definition of motor vehicle under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1 in a case involving an injury caused by a bush hog and a tractor. Gates v. Glass, 291 Ga. 350, 729 S.E.2d 361 (2012).
- In a parent's action against a school district for the death of the parent's child as the child tried to board a school bus, although the district had sovereign immunity, the district waived sovereign immunity to the extent of the district's purchase of liability insurance pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b); the exclusion from the waiver of sovereign immunity for school districts in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2(a) did not extend to the second sentence of § 33-24-51(b). Tift County Sch. Dist. v. Martinez, 331 Ga. App. 423, 771 S.E.2d 117 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1084, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 458 (Ga. 2015).
- Term "local government entity" should not be construed so narrowly as to exclude sheriffs' offices, which though separate from a county itself, nevertheless, clearly performs governmental services on a local level. Davis v. Morrison, 344 Ga. App. 527, 810 S.E.2d 649 (2018).
Summary judgment was properly granted to the deputy as the deputy was not subject to liability for the automobile accident and the plaintiff's claims against the deputy were barred because the term "local government entity" included sheriffs' offices; any local government officer or employee who committed a tort involving the use of a covered motor vehicle while in the performance of the employee's official duties was not subject to lawsuit or liability; and the deputy was employed as a county sheriff's deputy and the deputy was driving a county-owned vehicle en route to the sheriff's office's evidence room where the deputy worked as an evidence custodian when the accident with the plaintiff occurred. Davis v. Morrison, 344 Ga. App. 527, 810 S.E.2d 649 (2018).
Cited in Hewell v. Walton County, 292 Ga. App. 510, 664 S.E.2d 875 (2008); Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App. 35, 714 S.E.2d 723 (2011); Bd. of Comm'rs v. Johnson, 311 Ga. App. 867, 717 S.E.2d 272 (2011); City of Atlanta v. Mitcham, 296 Ga. 576, 769 S.E.2d 320 (2015).
Total Results: 8
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17
Snippet: dismiss, Collington conceded that, because OCGA § 36-92-1, et seq. was amended after the subject collision
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Snippet: that phrase is used in [OCGA §§] 33-24-51; 36-92-1; and 36-92-2. The complaint allege[s] that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-02-15
Snippet: The first tier, established under OCGA § 36-92-1 et seq., requires local entities to waive
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-02-01
Snippet: argued that the lawsuit was governed by OCGA § 36-92- 1 et seq., which waives the sovereign immunity of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-07-02
Citation: 291 Ga. 350, 729 S.E.2d 361, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 2152, 2012 WL 2513768, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 647
Snippet: 1 notwithstanding the 2002 passage of OCGA § 36-92-1. We answer in the affirmative. Having been assigned
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-05-16
Citation: 710 S.E.2d 763, 289 Ga. 319, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1501, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 381
Snippet: government entity would not be liable under OCGA § 36-92-1 et seq., as where the employee committed the tort
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-11-23
Citation: 686 S.E.2d 777, 286 Ga. 245, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3663, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 735
Snippet: highways, and not operated exclusively upon tracks”); 36-92-1 (6) (as used in chapter on local government entities
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-10-20
Citation: 588 S.E.2d 688, 277 Ga. 248, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3112, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 895
Snippet: negligent use of a motor vehicle. See also OCGA § 36-92-1 et. seq. Compare this waiver to the broad waiver