Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the operation and maintenance of a traffic light is generally a governmental function for which a municipality is not liable in negligence, and that an improperly operating traffic light is not a physical street defect under Code § 69-303. However, the court affirmed because the petition alleged facts sufficient to state a nuisance claim based on the municipality’s knowing maintenance of a dangerous traffic-light condition.
Holdings
- The maintenance and operation of a traffic-light system is a governmental function, and a municipality is not liable for negligent performance of that function.
- The improper operation of a municipal traffic light is not a physical defect or obstruction in a street within the meaning of Code § 69-303 and therefore does not convert the traffic-regulation function into a ministerial street-maintenance function.
- The petition stated a cause of action for the Town's operation and maintenance of a nuisance, notwithstanding that the alleged conduct occurred in the exercise of a governmental function.
Questions Presented
- Whether the maintenance and operation of a municipal traffic light is a governmental or ministerial function for purposes of municipal tort liability.
- Whether an improperly operating traffic light constitutes a physical defect or obstruction in a street under Code § 69-303.
- Whether the petition's allegations were sufficient to state a nuisance claim against the municipality despite governmental-function immunity from ordinary negligence claims.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (19)
- Phillips v. Town of Fort Oglethorpe, 118 Ga. App. 62, 162 S.E.2d 771 (1968)(reviewed)
- Arthur v. City of Albany, 98 Ga. App. 746, 747, 106 S.E.2d 347 (1958)(followed)
- Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108 (1), 97 S.E.2d 330 (1957)(followed)
- City of Rome v. Potts, 45 Ga. App. 406, 410, 165 S.E. 131 (1932)(followed)
- Dorminey v. City of Montgomery, 232 Ala. 47, 166 So. 689(persuasive)
- Avey v. City of West Palm Beach, 152 Fla. 717, 12 So. 2d 881(persuasive)
- Auslander v. City of St. Louis, 332 Mo. 145, 56 S.W.2d 778(persuasive)
- Powell v. City of Nashville, 167 Tenn. 334, 69 S.E.2d 894(persuasive)
- Sandmann v. Sheehan, 279 Ky. 614, 131 S.E.2d 484(persuasive)
- Martin v. City of Canton, 41 Ohio App. 420, 180 N.E. 78(persuasive)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…