What is the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur?
A plaintiff appealed a trial court’s order granting the City of Albany’s motion to dismiss his negligence action against the City for injuries he sustained when he stepped on a stormwater drainage intake lid in his yard, the lid dislodged, and he fell into the stormwater drainage system. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in concluding that his ante litem notice to the City was insufficient.
The issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff’s ante litem notice sufficiently identified the negligence that caused the injury, as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(b).
The ante litem notice sent to the City of Albany
The plaintiff’s ante litem notice to the City stated, in pertinent part:
On or about August 12, 2024, the plaintiff was mowing his lawn at 1610 Whispering Pines Road, Albany, Georgia when he stepped onto the corner of a stormwater drain … intake lid, owned and maintained by the City of Albany, and it dislodged causing him to fall into the intake system … . When the plaintiff’s fall stopped, he could barely see above the edge. The plaintiff had to pull his six foot four inch, three-hundred-pound frame out of the stormwater drain by the sheer force of will. As a result, he suffered injuries to his back, both knees, right wrist, and a complete shoulder dislocation … . The purpose of this letter is to comply with the ante litem notice requirements … . While our investigation is still ongoing, the specific dollar amount sought by my client for his injuries is one million and 00/100 dollars ($1,000,000.00). If you contend this letter does not provide you with sufficient notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5, or comply with said statute, please advise me immediately in writing, and we will correct any deficiencies.
When the City failed to respond to his notice, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging negligence by the City in numerous respects. The City moved to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide proper ante litem notice. The trial court granted the City’s motion, concluding that the plaintiff’s notice failed to describe the negligence that caused his injuries and rejecting the plaintiff’s alternative argument that he wasn’t required to describe the City’s negligence because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable. This appeal followed.
Claimant must provide written notice of the claim
Presiding Judge Brian M. Rickman wrote in his opinion for the panel that prior to filing a suit against a municipality for personal injury or property damage, a claimant must provide written notice of the claim “to the governing authority of the municipal corporation,” and such notice must include “the time, place, and extent of the injury, as nearly as practicable, and the negligence which caused the injury.” Judge Rickman said that substantial compliance with the requirements imposed by O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(b) is all that’s required.
The judge went on to explain that the ante litem notice must provide sufficient information “to enable the municipality to conduct an investigation into the alleged injuries and determine if the claim should be settled without litigation.” And “where the notice fails to identify what alleged negligence on the part of the municipality caused the incident forming the basis for the plaintiff’s claim,” the notice isn’t sufficiently definite “to enable the municipality to inquire into the alleged injuries and determine whether the claim shall be adjusted without suit.”
In this case, the plaintiff argued that his notice complied with the statutory requirements. His notice stated that he fell when he stepped on the stormwater drainage intake lid, which he stated was owned and maintained by the City. But he didn’t indicate what negligence on the part of the City he alleged caused his injuries. And despite the plaintiff’s counsel’s request that the City notify her if the notice failed to comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5, nothing in the statute imposes such an obligation on the City.
Res Ipsa Loquitor authorizes, but doesn’t require, the jury to infer facts from the circumstances in which the injury occurred
Alternatively, the plaintiff argued that it wasn’t necessary for him to provide specific details about what alleged negligence by the City caused his injuries because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. The Court of Appeals disagreed.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence to be applied in cases where there is no evidence of consequence showing negligence on the part of the defendant. The doctrine authorizes, but doesn’t require, the jury to infer facts from the circumstances in which the injury occurred, thereby filling the evidentiary gap.
In other words, the principal basis for application of the rule is that the occurrence involved wouldn’t have happened but for negligence, and this negligence may properly be charged to the person in exclusive control of the instrumentality.
The elements of res ipsa loquitur are well settled:
- The injury is of a type that ordinarily doesn’t occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
- The injury must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control; and
- The injury mustn’t have been caused by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
The judge cautioned that the doctrine should be applied with caution and only in extreme cases, and went on to opine that pretermitting whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be utilized to satisfy the negligence component of the ante litem notice requirements, in this case, the second element of the doctrine wasn’t met. That’s because the stormwater drainage intake lid located in the plaintiff’s yard wasn’t within the City’s exclusive control. As a result, the trial court didn’t err in concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable here, and the plaintiff wasn’t relieved of the obligation to describe the negligence that caused him injury. Hicks v. City of Albany, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 115 , 2026 LX 20170 (Ga. App. February 26, 2026).
Our experts
Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust. We are happy to answer your questions. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).