The plaintiff appeals from the grant of defendant County's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought to recover based on the defendant's failure to erect a stop sign at a point where one road dead-ended into another. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries when she drove her vehicle through the intersection and into a ditch; that the injuries were caused by the defendant's maintaining a dangerous and defective condition and failing to warn of such condition. Held:
For two reasons the trial judge correctly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
1. From the facts adduced, the plaintiff failed to submit a written claim within 12 months after it accrued as required by Code 23-1602. Doyal v. Dept. of Transp., 142 Ga. App. 79
, 80 (234 SE2d 858
2. In Englander v. City of East Point, 135 Ga. App. 487 (218 SE2d 161)
, this Court held: "It is obvious that plaintiff bases his complaint against the city because of its failure to place signs or barricades on a dead end street which would warn an individual of the character of the street. Deciding whether to erect or not to erect a traffic control sign or to maintain it after installation is an exercise of a governmental function by a municipality and it is not liable for any negligent performance of this function. Town of Ft. Oglethorpe v. Phillips, 224 Ga. 834 (165 SE2d 141)
; Arthur v. City of Albany, 98 Ga. App. 746 (106 SE2d 347)
; Lundy v. City Council of Augusta, 51 Ga. App. 655 (181 SE 237)
. Nor would the lack of a sign or barricade fall within the category of a defect or obstruction of the street so as to constitute the function ministerial within Code 69-303 as the defect or obstructions contemplated by the statute are physical obstructions or defects." Accord, Tamas v. Columbus, Georgia, 244 Ga. 200
, 202 (259 SE2d 457
), where the Supreme Court pointed out: " 'In all of these cases a clear line is drawn between a discretionary nonfeasance and the negligent maintenance of something erected by the city, in its discretion, in such manner as to create a dangerous nuisance, and which amounts to misfeasance.' "
Hence, the failure to erect a traffic signal was not negligence and did not constitute a nuisance. See Hancock v. City of Dalton, 131 Ga. App. 178 (205 SE2d 470)
Frank H. Jones, for appellee.