Court Opinion

ID: 9596328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:48:25.763152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:12.635867
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
dissenting. The majority opinion is predicated upon two erroneous theories: (a) that the maintenance of a traffic signal light is a ministerial function, and (b) that the failure to properly maintain a traffic signal light creates a defect or obstruction in the street and the Town of Fort Oglethorpe is liable under Code § 69-303. The concurring opinion is based upon the erroneous premise that recovery can be had on the theory of an injury caused by the maintenance of a nuisance for which the city would be liable irrespective of whether it be created by the exercise of a governmental or of a ministerial function, even though such nuisance had no effect upon the enjoyment of real property or rights therein.
Whatever my personal views and sympathies -might be, I am constrained by the prior decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court of this state to disagree with these positions.
These opinions seek to distinguish certain cases and rely on language lifted from the context in others and completely disregard the rulings in other cases by this court' which distinguish the very cases the majority rely upon, and show that they do not apply to cases such as the present one.
Let us first determine what has been previously held in cases which have not been overruled and which are binding upon us. In City of Rome v. Potts, 45 Ga. App. 406, 410 (165 SE 131), this court ruled: “The alleged negligence of officers of the municipality in operation of the traffic light established and maintained under provisions of the traffic code of the City of Rome, in that they did not allow a reasonable time between change of lights for plaintiff to cross the street, does not change the ruling herein made. Operation of the traffic light conducted in behalf of the public safety was a governmental function, for the negligent performance of which the city is not liable. Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Jones, 149 Ga. 139 (99 SE 294) [erroneously distinguished and relied on by the majority here]; Civil Code (1910), § 893; 43 CJS 964, § 1245.” (Emphasis supplied.) This is an express ruling that the operation of a traffic light is a governmental function. If this is so, the failure to operate or the improper operation of it because of negligent maintenance does not remove it from the governmental function area.
*72In Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108, 109 (97 SE2d 330), this court again ruled: “Operation of a traffic light conducted in behalf of the public safety is a governmental function, for the negligent performance of which the city is not liable. City of Rome v. Potts, 45 Ga. App. 406, 410 (165 SE 131); Stubbs v. City of Macon, 78 Ga. App. 237 (2b) (50 SE2d 866) . . . Nothing to the contrary is held in the case of Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Jones, 149 Ga. 139 (99 SE 294) [the majority here say the contrary was held and used this case to support its opinion], which holds that while a city in the emptying of its trash cans is performing a governmental function it may also, by removing and placing the lid in such a manner as to obstruct the street, be negligent in its ministerial duty of keeping the sidewalks free from obstruction and be liable on this theory. It cannot reasonably be said that defective maintenance of a traffic control signal 15 feet above the street at a place which could not be reached except by climbing a pole is in such a location as to constitute defective maintenance of the streets and sidewalks along which normal pedestrian and vehicular traffic moves, and liability against the city cannot be predicated upon this theory.” (Emphasis supplied.) Also in reference to the premise upon which the concurring opinion is based, that is, the nuisance theory, the court in the Stanley case disposed of that on two grounds: (a) that there was no knowledge on the part of the city as to the defect in the traffic light (in the present case, there are allegations as to knowledge) and, as is true of the present case, the court in the Stanley case further held: “(b) The petition is also insufficient to show that the city was maintaining a nuisance of which the plaintiff, an employee of the Georgia Power Company (as distinguished from the utility who owned the property in question) could complain. This court adheres to the often repeated designation of an actionable private nuisance as one which is ‘specially injurious to an individual by reason of its proximity to his home.’ Lewis v. City of Moultrie, 27 Ga. App. 757 (110 SE 625); Stubbs v. City of Macon, 78 Ga. App. 237 (1) (50 SE2d 866); Kea v. City of Dublin, 145 Ga. 511 (89 SE 484); City Council of Augusta v. Cleveland, 148 Ga. 734 (98 SE 345); Ingram v. *73City of Acworth, 90 Ga. App. 719 (84 SE2d 99); Delta Air Corp. v. Kersey, 193 Ga. 862 (20 SE2d 245, 140 ALR 1352). The origin of this limitation on the nuisance doctrine dates back to the common law, which construed nuisance as an infringement on a man’s freehold. Garrett, Nuisances, 3rd Ed., p. 2. It was observed in State ex rel. Boykin v. Ball Investment Co., 191 Ga. 382, 389 (12 SE2d 574), that our statutory definition of nuisance, which corresponds with that found in Blackstone, 'was not intended to change the common law definition of a nuisance.’ While it is no longer required that the plaintiff in a nuisance case show, as he had to do at common law, a freehold interest in the property affected by the nuisance, and while he no longer need show damage to the realty itself, he must still show that the condition is injurious by reason of its relationship to his home or property in the neighborhood where it is located, or else that it is injurious by reason of its constituting an obstruction to streets or sidewalks and like places used by the public generally for passage, which obstructions were at common law regarded as public nuisances because they interfered with the public right of passage. See Garrett, Law of Nuisances, supra, p. 3. In 75 ALR, p. 1196 at page 1198 it is also stated: ‘As noted above, it is generally held that the municipality, as owner of real estate, owes the same duties to the owners of neighboring lands, with respect to the use of its own, as are owed by a private owner of land, and hence that the municipality is liable to other landowners, where it makes such use of its land as to constitute a nuisance, regardless of whether it is engaged in performing a governmental or private function.’ This rule is equally applicable, of course, whether the actual injury is personal or property damage. Nothing in Towaliga Falls Power Co. v. Sims, 6 Ga. App. 749 (65 SE 804) authorizes a contrary ruling [in the present case the concurring opinion cites this case as authority], for in that case the question of the plaintiff’s interest in. the property affected by the nuisance was first considered, and it was held that he, as a tenant at will of the property, had such an interest therein as would sustain the action. What is said thereafter, to the effect that one specially damaged by a nuisance can recover from a wrongdoer, though his damage *74consists in an injury to purse or person, irrespective of whether he has had an interest in real estate damaged or not, refers to the measure of damages, the holding being that one in the plaintiff’s position might maintain the action for personal injuries regardless of whether he personally would also be entitled to recover for the damage to the real estate.” (Emphasis supplied). In Arthur v. City of Albany, 98 Ga. App. 746, 757 (106 SE2d 347), in reference to the failure to maintain a stop sign, this court said: “1. The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers. Count 1 of the petition was insufficient to set forth a cause of action on account of the maintenance of a nuisance. The allegations of the petition fail to show that the condition created by the absence of the stop sign was injurious to the plaintiff by reason of its relationship to her home or property located in the neighborhood, or that it was expressly injurious to the plaintiff as a member of the public as constituting an obstruction to the streets or sidewalks. Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108, 112 (2b) (97 SE2d 330). 2. The operation and maintenance of traffic lights and other traffic control devices is a governmental function conducted on behalf of the public safety and for the negligent performance of which municipal corporations are not liable. Code § 69-301; City of Rome v. Potts, 45 Ga. App. 406, 410 (165 SE 131). Such functions are not related to the maintenance of the streets as such, and liability of a municipality for the negligent failure to maintain a stop sign after it is once erected cannot be predicated on the theory that it is a part of street maintenance.
‘In deciding whether to erect the stop sign in the first place and in erecting it, the municipality exercises its legislative or judicial powers, and in determining whether to maintain the stop sign or traffic control device or to operate it, and in determining whether to replace it once it has been destroyed or removed, are all a part of the same exercise of legislative or judicial power, and the duty of erecting the device cannot be divorced from the duty of maintaining it so as to say that the erection of the stop sign is an exercise of the legislative function, but that its maintenance or re-erection is merely ministerial. Long recognized limitations on municipal liability for *75the negligent performance of governmental duties will not be abrogated by this kind of judicial legislation. City of Cumming v. Chastain, 97 Ga. App. 13 (102 SE2d 97).
“It follows that the petition failed to set forth a cause of action against the municipality in any of its counts, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing it. See Stubbs v. City of Macon, 78 Ga. App. 237 (2b) (50 SE2d 866).” (Emphasis supplied.) In Stubbs v. City of Macon, 78 Ga. App. 237 (50 SE2d 866), this court ruled as follows: “1. Municipalities are liable for the acts of their officers, agents, and servants only in instances as follows: (a) In the performance of any function where a statute specifically provides for such liability (see specific statutes), (b) For neglect to perform or improper or unskillful performance of their ministerial duties (see Code § 69-301). (c) For the performance of their governmental functions where the same amounts to the taking or damaging of private property for public purposes without first making adequate compensation therefor (see Art. I, Sec. III, Par. I of the Constitution, Code Ann. § 2-301), or the creation of a nuisance dangerous to the life and health of persons because of its proximity to them in the enjoyment of their property. See Kersey v. Atlanta, 193 Ga. 862 (20 SE2d 245, 140 ALR 1352), and cases there cited. . . 4. The petition in the instant case shows that the municipality was engaged in the operation of a city park, and in the operation of its parking meters, both governmental functions, in connection with the injury of the plaintiff; and that the conduct of its officers, agents, and servants was not such as to amount to the taking or damaging of private property for public purposes without first making adequate compensation therefor; nor is such a nuisance alleged as was dangerous to the life and health of persons because of its proximity to them in the enjoyment of their property. Therefore the judgment of the trial court sustaining the demurrer to the petition is without error.” In this case, a water-meter box was left about 7 inches above the level of the pavement after parking meters were installed next to the paved walkway in the park.
These cases have clearly and distinctly ruled (1) that the *76maintenance, even though negligently done, of a traffic control device, whether a stop sign or an electrical signal, is a governmental function and (2) that where a nuisance is created by a governmental function and injury caused therefrom, no recovery can be had (a) unless there has been an invasion of a real property right or a right of enjoyment of real property or if this is not shown (b) it must be shown that it is a nuisance which constituted an obstruction to the streets or sidewalks. The very cases cited by the majority opinions show that the nuisance must relate to injuries to real estate or injuries to enjoyment of real estate. I do not dissent from the majority on the ground that there was no nuisance created by the continued maintenance of the defective light, but I do dissent on the ground that the nuisance here involved is not the type of nuisance for which recovery could be had where a governmental function was being carried on. The governmental immunities doctrine and law as established which permits the growth and operation of small governmental units, as well as aids the continuance of larger units of government should not be changed by the courts, but if same is to be done, should be done by legislation. If it is done in that manner, safeguards can be erected to permit small governmental units to survive and citizens to be protected in their rights. In every case cited by the majority opinion, the operation of a governmental function caused an actual physical obstruction in the street, or the nuisance created, affected the enjoyment of rights in and to real property, even though damages for injury to the person and personal property were the measure of the right to recover. Cases of this type are distinguished and declared inapplicable to cases involving traffic lights which themselves do not physically obstruct the streets in the cases from which we have quoted. In my opinion, the following is a correct solution of this case:
1. The operation of a traffic control system by a municipal corporation being a governmental function in the exercise of its police power, the municipality is not liable for injuries caused by the negligent installation and maintenance of such equipment. City of Rome v, Potts, 45 Ga. App. 406, 410, supra; Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108, supra; Arthur v. City of Al*77bany, 98 Ga. App. 746, supra; Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Jones, 149 Ga. 139, supra.
2. While it may be true that a municipality may be held responsible for the creation of a nuisance in connection with the installation, operation and maintenance of equipment used in a governmental function (Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108, 110 (2), supra), yet where, as in the present case, it appears that the injury was to the person of, and the vehicle of, the plaintiff arising out of a collision with the vehicle of another defendant occurring at a street intersection where a signal light operated and maintained by the municipality was showing green on both intersecting streets, no recovery can be had because no invasion of, or interference with the enjoyment of, real property of the plaintiff in proximity to the alleged nuisance is shown. Stanley v. City of Macon, supra; Stubbs v. City of Macon, 78 Ga. App. 237 (1), supra.
While the damages are not limited to the injury to the realty, and damages may be recovered for injuries to health (Central Ga. Power Co. v. Nolen, 143 Ga. 776, 778 (85 SE 945)) and loss of business profits (Barham v. Grant, 185 Ga. 601, 605 (7) (196 SE 43)), such damages to the person and to the property must arise out of an invasion of a property right relating to real estate. See Stanley v. City of Macon, 95 Ga. App. 108, 113, supra.
3. A signal light, installed by a municipality on a public street, operating improperly, is not an obstruction in the public street, so as to permit the allowance of damages for the negligent failure to maintain its streets properly. Arthur v. City of Albany, 98 Ga. App. 746, 747 (2), supra. It not appearing that the signal light itself was physically obstructing the street (see Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Jones, 149 Ga. 139, supra), there was no change from a governmental function to a ministerial function requiring the removal of the signal light from the street. See Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Jones, supra.
4. The trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition and dismissing the same as to the Town of Fort Oglethorpe.
While all the legal issues as decided by the majority have been *78included in this dissent, there is another v ground upon which I feel compelled to dissent from the ruling in the majority opinion insofar as it authorizes a recovery based upon a ministerial function and an obstruction in the street for which recovery may be had under Code § 69-303. I do this for the very simple reason that the plaintiff in his' action expressly alleged that the maintenance and operation of the light was a governmental function and sought recovery solely on the grounds that the defendant had committed a public nuisance; and even when setting forth the allegations of negligence prefaced them with the following statement: “That while this cause of action against the Town of Fort Oglethorpe is based on the commission of a nuisance and not negligence, such defendant was negligent and careless in the operation of traffic control lights at such intersection, and committed the following acts which constituted a nuisance.”
Even if I should agree with the majority that a recovery could be had for negligence against the city under the facts alleged in the present case, I could not agree to the application of such rule to this case as • a recovery was not sought upon those principles. This court cannot grant that which is not asked or sought. It can only correct the errors of the trial judge. If, according to the opinion of the majority, the plaintiff erroneously abandoned his right to recover based on negligence in the maintenance of streets, that is an error that this court cannot correct. In my opinion, the plaintiff properly conceded that no cause of action existed upon such a basis. I also concur with the trial judge in his ruling that no other basis existed for recovery against the Town of Fort Oglethorpe.
Whether or not a recovery may be had against the city officials who may be responsible for the alleged flagrant violation of their duties is not a question presented to this court for decision.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Bell and Judges Eberhardt and Quillian concur in this dissent.