O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) Trial of tort actions against the state under this article shall be conducted by a judge with a jury; provided, however, the parties may agree that the same be tried by a judge without a jury.
(b)(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2) of this subsection, in any action or claim for damages brought under the provisions of this article, no person shall recover a sum exceeding $1 million because of loss arising from a single occurrence, regardless of the number of state government entities involved; and the state’s aggregate liability per occurrence shall not exceed $3 million. The existence of these caps on liability shall not be disclosed or suggested to the jury during the trial of any action brought under this article.
(2) In any action or claim for damages brought under the provisions of this article pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 8 of Title 31, any caps specified under Code Section 51-13-1, notwithstanding any applicability limitations specified in such Code section, shall serve as a total cap of all damages, regardless of the type of damages claimed; provided, however, that in no event shall the state’s liability exceed the limits provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection. The existence of this cap on liability shall not be disclosed or suggested to the jury during the trial of any action brought under this article.
History
Code 1981, § 50-21-29, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1883, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1493, § 6/HB 166.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Waiver of sovereign immunity limited. - Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., waives sovereign immunity for suits to recover monetary damages for the torts of state officers and employees while acting within the scope of their official duties or employment, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-23(a), subject to exceptions, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-24, and limitations, such as O.C.G.A. § 50-21-29(b). Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408, 801 S.E.2d 867 (2017). Modification of cap was abuse of discretion. - When a pretrial order stated that the damages cap in the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., would apply, the trial court abused the court’s discretion by implicitly modifying the pretrial order to support a judgment in excess of the cap. Dep’t of Human Resources v. Phillips, 268 Ga. 316, 486 S.E.2d 851 (1997). Separate caps for plaintiff and employer not authorized. - There is no authority justifying adding to the $1,000,000 per person cap just because a plaintiff was forced by operation of another law to reimburse the plaintiff ’s employer for benefits the employer paid under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, U.S.C. Ch. 18, T. 33, before the plaintiff secured a negligence judgment against the Georgia Ports Authority. Georgia Ports Auth. v. Harris, 243 Ga. App. 508, 533 S.E.2d 404 (2000).
Referral to statutory cap on damages failed to state amount of loss required by ante litem notice. - In the plaintiff ’s personal injury action under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., against the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), alleging that a DOT employee negligently caused a vehicle collision in which the plaintiff was injured, the DOT’s motion to dismiss was improperly denied because the plaintiff ’s ante litem notice failed to state the amount of loss the plaintiff knew at the time of the notice; the plaintiff ’s statement that the plaintiff intended to claim the full amount of damages allowed by law failed to satisfy the definition of the amount of loss claimed as it referred to a cap on the amount the plaintiff might be allowed to recover without providing any information about the amount the plaintiff could claim to the jury. Georgia Department of Transportation v. King, 341 Ga. App. 102, 798 S.E.2d 492 (2017). Accrual of interest. - In a negligence action against the Department of Transportation, the court erred in entering judgment in excess of $1 million, as allowed under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-29(b), and interest accrued on the $1 million maximum allowable, not on the larger sum returned in the verdict. DOT v. Cannady, 230 Ga. App. 585, 497 S.E.2d 72 (1998), aff ’d, 270 Ga. 427, 511 S.E.2d 173 (1999).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Construction and application of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Com-
pensation Act (LHWCA) - Supreme Court cases, 72 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case:
Dep't of Transp. v. King, 798 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
Dep't of Transp. v. King, 798 S.E.2d 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 22× “The trial court determined that “the full amount of damages allowed by law” is established by the GTCA under OCGA § 50-21-29 (b) (1). That subsection provides that “in any action or claim for damages brought under the provisions of [the GTCA], no person shall recover a sum…”
Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Couch, 759 S.E.2d 804 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 6× “See OCGA §§ 50-21-29 (b) (setting caps on the state’s liability in actions brought under the GTCA), 50-21-30 (excluding punitive damages and prejudgment interest from awards of damages).”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Phillips, 486 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 8× “5 million because the pretrial order, agreed upon by the parties and executed by the trial court, stated that "[u]nder the State Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-29, the maximum amount of damages is $1,000,000.”
Lathrop v. Deal, 801 S.E.2d 867 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The most prominent of these is a suit under the Tort Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity for suits to recover monetary damages for “the torts of state officers and employees while acting within the scope of their official duties or employment,” OCGA § 50-21-23 (a),…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Cannady, 497 S.E.2d 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 14× “The trial court entered a judgment against DOT in the amount of $2,650,000, although it acknowledged in the judgment that the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-29, placed “a limit on the recov *586 ery” by an individual of $1,000,000.”
Williams v. Dep't of Human Resources, 532 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Williams is entitled to prevail, the State "would be put in the position of settling claims that might never accrue with persons who are not the proper claimants, subjecting the public funds to multiple recoveries for the same incident." This situation could never occur because…”
MCG Health, Inc. v. Nelson, 606 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Instead, it simply claims that OCGA§ 50-21-29 (b) limits the Regents’ liability to $1,000,000 for a single occurrence and $3,000,000 aggregated per occurrence.”
Ga. Ports Auth. v. Lawyer, 821 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 50-21-29 (b) (1) ("[I]n any action or claim for damages brought under the provisions of [the Tort Claims Act], no person shall recover a sum exceeding $1 million because of loss arising from a single occurrence.”
Georgia Ports Auth. v. Harris, 533 S.E.2d 404 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Harris contends the trial court erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded by the jury in his favor to $1,000,000 in accordance with OCGA § 50-21-29 which provides, "no person shall recover a sum exceeding $1 million because of loss arising from a single occurrence.”
Allred v. Yarborough, 843 So. 2d 727 (Miss. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Code § 11-93-2 (recovery limited to $300,000 in the aggregate where more than two persons have claims); Ga.Code Ann. § 50-21-29 (state's aggregate liability per occurrence shall not exceed $3 million); N.”
Georgia Dep't of Transp. v. Miller, 686 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “After reducing the jury’s verdict pursuant to OCGA § 50-21-29, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Linda Miller in the amount of $1 million and in favor of Richard Miller in the amount of $507,921.”
Julian v. Hanna, 732 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2013).
“, 705 ILCS 505/8(d) ($100,000 cap); Ga.Code § 50-21-29(b)(l) ($1,000,000); Utah Code § 63G-7-604(l)(a) (an oddly specific $583,900), and, to our knowledge, unchallenged in cases governed by the Parratt doctrine.”
— 50-21-29(b) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Resources v. Phillips, 486 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 1997).
“5 million because the pretrial order, agreed upon by the parties and executed by the trial court, stated that "[u]nder the State Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-29, the maximum amount of damages is $1,000,000.”
— 50-21-29(b)(l) — 1 case
Julian v. Hanna, 732 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2013).
“, 705 ILCS 505/8(d) ($100,000 cap); Ga.Code § 50-21-29(b)(l) ($1,000,000); Utah Code § 63G-7-604(l)(a) (an oddly specific $583,900), and, to our knowledge, unchallenged in cases governed by the Parratt doctrine.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.