Summary Of Dates V. City Of Atlanta (S24G1246, Ga. Supreme Court, Decided June 10, 2025) By Georgia Personal Injury Attorney George Creal

Case Overview: In Dates v. City of Atlanta, the Georgia Supreme Court addressed whether the minor tolling provision under OCGA § 9-3-90(b) applies to the six-month ante litem notice requirement for claims against municipalities under OCGA § 36-33-5. The case arose after Kierra Dates’s minor son, J.D., was injured by a falling tree branch at a City-owned park, and her lawsuit was dismissed due to non-compliance with the municipal ante litem notice statute.

Facts: On June 1, 2020, J.D., an eight-year-old, was injured at Howell Park in Atlanta when a rotten tree branch fell on his leg. Dates sent an ante litem notice to the City on June 12, 2020, claiming a loss “in excess of $500,000.” On July 9, 2021, over a year later, she sent a supplemental notice specifying a $1,000,000 loss. Dates filed her complaint on November 23, 2021. The City moved to dismiss, arguing the first notice lacked the specificity required by OCGA § 36-33-5(e) (requiring a “specific amount of monetary damages”) and the second was untimely under OCGA § 36-33-5(b) (requiring notice within six months of the incident). Dates countered that the minor tolling provision (OCGA § 9-3-90(b)), which extends the time for minors to bring actions until after reaching 18, should toll the ante litem notice period.

Lower Court Rulings: The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the first notice insufficiently specific and the supplemental notice untimely. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Dept. of Public Safety v. Ragsdale (308 Ga. 210, 2020), which held that ante litem notice requirements under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (OCGA § 50-21-26) are not statutes of limitations subject to tolling. The Court of Appeals extended this rationale to OCGA § 36-33-5, disapproved prior cases treating municipal ante litem notices as statutes of limitations subject to tolling, and held that OCGA § 9-3-90(b) does not toll the municipal notice period.

Supreme Court Decision: In a unanimous opinion by Justice McMillian, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the minor tolling provision (OCGA § 9-3-90(b)) does not apply to the municipal ante litem notice requirement (OCGA § 36-33-5). Key reasoning includes:

• Statutory Text Analysis:
  • OCGA § 36-33-5(b) requires written notice within six months of the incident, with no mention of tolling provisions. The absence of tolling language contrasts with OCGA § 36-11-1 (county ante litem notice statute), which explicitly allows tolling for minors and disabled persons. This textual difference suggests the General Assembly intentionally omitted tolling for municipal notices.
  • OCGA § 9-3-90(b) extends the time for minors to “bring an action,” referring to statutes of limitations. OCGA § 36-33-5(b), however, governs when a court may “entertain” an action, indicating it is a condition precedent, not a statute of limitations.
• Precedent: The Court relied on Ragsdale, which clarified that ante litem notices are conditions precedent, not statutes of limitations, and thus not subject to tolling provisions like OCGA § 9-3-99 (criminal tolling). The Court extended this logic to OCGA § 9-3-90(b), consistent with City of Chamblee v. Maxwell (264 Ga. 635, 1994), which held that OCGA § 36-33-5 is a condition precedent.
• Rejection of Acquiescence Argument: Dates argued that the General Assembly’s inaction in response to Court of Appeals cases applying tolling to OCGA § 36-33-5 indicated acquiescence. The Court rejected this, citing Ragsdale’s dismissal of similar arguments, noting that those cases contravened Maxwell and were not a “settled construction.”

Implications For Personal Injury Practice:

• Strict Compliance with Ante Litem Notice: Personal injury attorneys must ensure municipal ante litem notices are filed within six months of the incident, stating a specific monetary amount (e.g., not “in excess of” a figure). Failure to comply risks dismissal, as courts strictly enforce OCGA § 36-33-5.
• No Tolling for Minors: The minor tolling provision does not extend the six-month notice period, even for claims involving minors. Attorneys must act promptly, regardless of the client’s age.
• Contrast with County Claims: Unlike municipal claims, county claims under OCGA § 36-11-1 allow tolling for minors, requiring attorneys to distinguish between municipal and county defendants when calendaring deadlines.
• Overruled Precedents: Prior Court of Appeals cases (e.g., Carter v. Glenn, Jacobs v. Littleton) allowing tolling for municipal ante litem notices are no longer good law, aligning practice with Ragsdale and Maxwell.

Takeaway: Dates v. City of Atlanta reinforces the stringent requirements for municipal ante litem notices and clarifies that minor tolling does not apply. For Georgia personal injury attorneys like George Creal, this case underscores the need for meticulous compliance with OCGA § 36-33-5’s timing and specificity rules, especially in cases involving minors, to avoid dismissal of claims against municipalities.