Payton v. City of Coll. Park, A22A0739, 2023 WL 4193455 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023)
The Plaintiffs contend that this case is akin to City of Lafayette v. Chandler, where this Court held that the ante litem notice satisfied the requirements of subsection (e).10 However, in that case, the plaintiff sought “to recover $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) in monetary damages”11 — a specific amount. Here, by contrast, the Plaintiffs sought “an amount not less than $1 million.”12 The Plaintiffs, citing Tobey v. Seaboard & Southern Constr. Co.,13 also contend that the phrase “not less than [some amount]” can constitute “a binding settlement term for an amount equal to said amount.” But Tobey did not involve a settlement and is inapposite to ante litem notices.14 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the notices failed to comply with OCGA § 36-33-5 (e).
[. . .]
“As a general rule, a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law only if the law has an adverse impact on that litigant’s own rights.”15 Here, the Plaintiffs have not pled, argued, or presented evidence that they are minors or persons with disabilities such that the tolling provisions in OCGA § 36-11-1 would be applicable to them. Nor do they meet the circumstances of third-party standing.16 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue this claim.
[. . .]
Here, the Plaintiffs alleged as part of their wrongful death claim that the defendants “intentional[ly]” refused to provide aid.25 But the Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege that the wrongful death was the result of any intentional tort by the cities. The Plaintiffs argue in their appellate brief that the cities committed an intentional tort because they were “aware of the injuries [and] they intentionally lingered and delayed the provision of aid to the victim.” However, the Plaintiffs cited no case, and we could find none, where this failure to render aid constituted an intentional tort. Failure-to-render-aid claims are typically premised on negligence.26