Trial Attorney Blog
For many yearsin Georgia, unless a local government entity carried optional liability insurance coverage for automobiles under the control of city/county employees, it could not be sued no matter how much damage was inflicted by their actions. Of course, this resulted in tremendous injustices throughout our state. Finally, in 2004 because many, many innocent members of the motoring public were being injured by the acts of negligent government employees, the Georgia Legislature acted to waive sovereign immunity in such cases. The waiver statute, while originally passed in 2004, did not provide for waivers until January of 2005. In 2005, the waiver of immunity was in the amount of $100,000.00 because of bodily injury or death to any one person and any one occurrence and an aggregate amount of $300,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one occurrence. While a limited waiver of sovereign immunity is typically inadequate in the more serious and catastrophic claims, it is better than what the law previously was and provides some measure of relief for innocent third parties injured by the acts of negligent government employees while operating government vehicles.
Effective January 1, 2007, the limits of coverage available to the public are now set by law at $250,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person and any one occurrence and an aggregate amount of $450,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in one or more occurrence. These amounts will increase in January 2008 to $500,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person and any one occurrence, and an aggregate amount of $700,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one occurrence. Hopefully, after 2008 the statute will be further amended to provide greater protection for the public.
Under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1, a “covered motor vehicle” means any motor vehicle owned by the local government entity and any motor vehicle leased or rented by the local government entity. A local government entity covered by the waiver of sovereign immunity means “any county, municipal corporation or consolidated city, county government of this state.” Unfortunately, the term does not include a local school system. Under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2, a government entity covered by the statute may purchase greater limits of coverage at its option but, if not, it is nonetheless mandated to carry the limits set forth herein.
In Georgia, many years ago, the Legislature passed a State Tort Claims Act which provided up to $1 million in relief for the negligent acts of state employees. Even though the State Tort Claims Act has now been in force for many years, its provisions did not extend to local government. Moreover, the courts had long protected local governments relying upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity to prevent private citizens from bringing claims against government entities which could implicate “the public purse.” The rationale was that lawsuits could impact the budget of local government entities and severely restrict or limit their ability to carry out governmental functions. After years of injustice for those injured by the negligent acts of local government employees, the Legislature finally acted to address this injustice when O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2 was passed. Slowly, but surely, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has begun to erode. Again, while the extent of the wavier of sovereign immunity provides some redress for innocent victims in limited contexts, there is still no waiver of sovereign immunity outside of the operation of a “covered motor vehicle.” Thus, there are many claims still out there where individuals are injured by the acts of government employees and there still is no remedy available to them under the law. Moreover, as set forth herein, the limited waiver of immunity for city and count vehicles is still less than that available for state acts of negligence.
We, of course, continue to monitor the efforts of Tort Reformers to limit the rights of innocent victims of negligence and will vigorously defend the rights of innocent victims to seek redress for damages caused by the negligent acts of others. While it is still an uphill battle in many contexts, the good news is that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is no longer as potent a force as it used to be in this state. While it still presents a major barrier for cases outside of the automobile context, progress has been made and hopefully will continue to be made as more and more people are educated about the injustice of the antiquated doctrine of sovereign immunity.