Kathy Kiser v. the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah

── Kathy Kiser v. the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., DAVIS, J., and SENIOR JUDGE FULLER NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules May 26, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0658. KISER v. MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH. DAVIS, Judge. Kathy Kiser filed a lawsuit against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah (the “City”), alleging she suffered injuries while walking in a crosswalk. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, and after a hearing, the trial court granted the City’s motion finding Kiser’s ante litem notice was statutorily deficient. Kiser filed this appeal, contending the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment because her ante litem notice substantially complied with the notice requirements of OCGA § 36-33-5. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply  a de novo standard of review, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Sidhom v. Boutrous, 358 Ga. App. 432, 432-33 (855 SE2d 426) (2021). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Kiser, the record shows that on March 20, 2021, Kiser was visiting Savannah when she tripped and fell in a crosswalk on East Bryan Street near the Bryan Street Parking Garage. Kiser contended that as a result of the fall, she sustained serious injuries. On April 9, 2021, Kiser sent an ante litem notice to the City wherein she contended that she sustained a substantial injury “when walking in a cross walk located on East Bryan Street near the Bryan Street Parking Garage” and that “the City, through its agents and employees, were negligent causing the fall.” On April 21, 2021, Kiser received a letter from the City’s Risk Management Director, and Kiser’s counsel spoke with the City’s Risk Management Director on the phone, confirming the City’s self insured status and the location where Kiser’s injury occurred. On May 29, 2022, Kiser received an email from a Risk Analyst for the City seeking clarification regarding the location where the injury occurred. Kiser’s counsel provided the Risk Analyst with the location and a photo of the crosswalk. On August, 9, 2022, Kiser received a letter from the Deputy 2 City Attorney that the City declined to adjust the matter. Kiser filed her lawsuit against the City on March 3, 2023. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Kiser’s ante litem notice was insufficient because it did not provide the City with enough information to enable it to conduct an investigation into her alleged injuries. Finding Kiser’s ante litem notice was statutorily deficient under OCGA § 36-33-5(b) because it failed to sufficiently state the negligence that caused her injury or the place the injury occurred, the trial court granted the City’s motion. This appeal followed. On appeal, Kiser argues the trial court erred by granting the City’s motion for summary judgment finding that her ante litem notice was statutorily deficient. Kiser contends her ante litem notice substantially complied with OCGA § 36-33-5(b) because it stated the place where the injury occurred and described the negligence that caused her injury. OCGA § 36-33-5(b) sets forth the necessary requirements for an ante litem notice.