Ronald D. Albertson, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, Linsey Albertson collectively “Albertson”, appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Jesup “the City”. Albertson argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against his claims that the City was negligent in its placement and maintenance of a stop-sign, which also constituted a nuisance. Specifically, he contends that this resulted in his failure to see the sign and to stop, which led to a subsequent collision with another vehicle. For the reasons noted infra , we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City. Viewed in the light most favorable to Albertson,1 the record shows that he and his daughter were driving through Jesup on their way home in his pick-up truck on the afternoon of July 25, 2004. They traveled westbound through a residential area on Bay Street and eventually reached its intersection with Fourth Street. Despite the undisputed presence of a stop-sign, Albertson did not see the sign and, thus, neither slowed nor stopped his vehicle prior to entering the intersection at 25-30 miles per hour.2 Consequently, a vehicle passing through in a southbound direction collided with Albertson’s truck, resulting in injuries to both Albertson and his daughter and totaling his truck.
Albertson became aware of the stop-sign only after the collision, when he noticed that it was obscured by foliage and placed an estimated 10-feet from the roadside in what he described as a concrete “bucket.”3 Thereafter, Albertson filed a complaint, in which he alleged that the City “failed to maintain the foliage . . ., negligently failed to place the stop sign . . . in a location which would render the stop sign visible to persons operating a vehicle . . ., and failed to provide a clear line of sight for vehicles traveling on the street.” The City subsequently filed two motions for summary judgment as to Albertson’s claims for negligence and a nuisance. The trial court granted the motions, finding that 1 as to the negligence claim, Albertson’s case was one for professional negligence and he lacked the expert testimony that would be necessary at trial to establish same, and 2 as to the nuisance claim, Albertson could not show that the City had the required notice of a defect at the intersection. This appeal by Albertson follows.
