Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 50-21-29 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 50-21-29 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 50-21-29

TITLE 50 STATE GOVERNMENT

Section 21. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity as to Actions Ex Contractu; State Tort Claims, 50-21-1 through 50-21-37.

ARTICLE 2 STATE TORT CLAIMS

50-21-29. Trial of actions; limitations on amounts of damages; caps to limit total damages regardless of the type claimed.

  1. 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.
    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.

(Code 1981, §50-21-29, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1883, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1493, § 6/HB 166.)

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).

Million dollar damages appropriate against Georgia Port Authority.

- Judgment awarding the plaintiff $4.5 million in damages following injuries sustained aboard a ship docked at a city terminal was affirmed because the trial court properly determined that the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) was not an instrument of the State of Georgia and, therefore, was not entitled to immunity from suit under U.S. Const., amend. XI as the Georgia Supreme Court has concluded that the GPA is not an arm of the state. Ga. Ports Authority v. Lawyer, 342 Ga. App. 161, 803 S.E.2d 94 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Construction and application of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) - Supreme Court cases, 72 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 50-21-29

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 109 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 19, 2017 | 801 S.E.2d 867

...onetary 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), subject to a number of exceptions, see OCGA § 50-21-24, and limitations. See, e.g., OCGA § 50-21-29 (b)....
Copy

Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Couch, 295 Ga. 469 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 63 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2014 | 759 S.E.2d 804, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1524

...political subdivisions shall be imposed only to the extent permitted by the law.”). The legislature also knows how to cap or exclude particular elements from the state’s financial exposure in the tort actions for which it has waived sovereign immunity. 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).9 The Department points out that the GTCA includes a provision expressly 9 We need not and therefore do not decide in this case whether a judgment in a GTCA case exceeding the cap of $1 million or $3 million on the state’s liability provided in § 50-21-29 (b) must be reduced to the cap amount before the court determines under § 9-11-68 (b) if the judgment exceeds 125% of the offer of settlement....
...2013) (addressing this issue in the context of Florida’s offer of settlement statute). We also need not decide here whether attorney fees and litigation expenses awarded under § 9-11-68 (b) must be included in the sums subject to the caps on the state’s liability set forth in § 50-21-29 (b). 18 providing for an award of attorney fees for improper litigation conduct, see OCGA § 50-21-32,10 and contends that this demonstrates that the General Assembly meant to exclude other similar attorney fees awards....
Copy

Dep't of Human Resources v. Phillips, 486 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 56 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 16, 1997 | 268 Ga. 316, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 2581

...For the reasons explained below, we now reverse in part and affirm in part. 1. DHR contends that the trial court erred by entering judgment in the amount of $3.5 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 $1,000,000.00, and if the jury awards an amount in excess of $1,000,000.00, said amount shall be written down by the Court." [3] Following the jury's verdict, DHR requested the trial court to reduce the entire award to $1 million, pursuant to the pretrial order....
...[15] See Cooper v. Rosser, 232 Ga. 597, 599, 207 S.E.2d 513 (1974). [16] See Richardson v. The State, 155 Ga.App. 664, 665, 272 S.E.2d 529 (1980); Council of Superior Court Judges, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. I at 2 (1991). [17] OCGA § 50-21-29(b)....
Copy

Williams v. Dep't of Human Resources, 532 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 5, 2000 | 272 Ga. 624, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2493

...per person, provides for no state liability for discretionary acts, provides for no more than one recovery for each "occurrence," and lists several situations for which the state will not be liable for losses. OCGA §§ 50-21-21; 50-21-24; 50-21-25; 50-21-29....
...es for the same incident." This situation could never occur because the statute specifically limits each claimant to one recovery of up to $1 million for each "occurrence" and the State's aggregate liability for each "occurrence" to $3 million. OCGA § 50-21-29....
Copy

Ga. Ports Auth. v. Lawyer, 821 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 1, 2018 | 304 Ga. 667

...XI ("The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."). See OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq. 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....")....
Copy

Georgia Ports Auth. v. Lawyer, 304 Ga. 667 (Ga. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 1, 2018

...To that end, the Ports Authority filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit to the extent that Lawyer sought to recover damages in excess of $1 million. The trial court deferred ruling on the motion until after trial,5 and in April 2016, the 3 See OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq. 4 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 ....