MARTA Injury Claims: Suing Atlanta’s Transit Authority

On this page

MARTA can be sued for an injury in Georgia much like a private company can. Section 22 of the MARTA Act removes the Authority’s governmental immunity from tort liability and makes it “liable therefor as any private corporation.” Two differences matter from the start: punitive damages are not available against MARTA as a wrongdoer, and the notice statutes Georgia applies to cities and to the State were written for those defendants, not for a transit authority by name.

What Section 22 Waives

The Supreme Court of Georgia has quoted Section 22 in full: “The Authority shall not enjoy governmental immunity from tort liability, but shall be liable therefor as any private corporation except that no execution shall be levied on any property of the Authority prior to ninety (90) days from the date of a final judgment against the Authority.” The section also requires the Authority to provide adequate insurance or similar protection, which “may be provided through self-insurance reserves or by contracts or arrangements with other parties” (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Binns, 252 Ga. 289 (1984), quoting Ga. L. 1965, pp. 2243, 2275, as amended by Ga. L. 1971, pp. 2092, 2101).

The Court of Appeals has called Section 22 “a clear, complete and absolute waiver of governmental immunity from tort liability” (Binns v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 168 Ga. App. 261 (1983)). A bus crash, a fall on a platform, or an injury on board is therefore litigated against MARTA under the same negligence rules that would govern a private carrier or property owner.

Punitive Damages

“Liable as any private corporation” does not bring every private remedy with it. In Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Boswell, 261 Ga. 427 (1991), a train passenger injured in a criminal attack at a MARTA station sought punitive damages. The Supreme Court held that “an award of punitive damages against MARTA would violate the public policy of Georgia, and therefore is impermissible as a matter of law.” The Court distinguished Binns, where MARTA had voluntarily assumed liability for punitive damages in its capacity as a self-insurer under the no-fault insurance law. Compensatory damages remain available.

Notice Before Suing

Georgia’s two general notice statutes name other defendants. OCGA 36-33-5 requires a claim against a municipal corporation for injuries to person or property to be presented in writing within six months of the event, and OCGA 50-21-26 requires notice of a claim against the State within 12 months of when the loss was or should have been discovered. The Court of Appeals referred to MARTA as an entity “which is not a municipality” in Binns (1983), in a discussion of punitive damages rather than notice. In City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 204 Ga. App. 387 (1992), it held that OCGA 36-33-5 did not reach MARTA’s own contribution claim against the City, reasoning that the statute departs from the common law and is construed strictly against the municipality. Both decisions answered other questions: Binns, punitive damages; City of Atlanta, a contribution claim between two public bodies.

For example, imagine a rider injured on January 10, 2026. Six months from the event runs to July 10, 2026, 12 months to January 10, 2027, and the two-year period for injuries to the person under OCGA 9-3-33 to January 10, 2028. Where a notice statute applies, presentment comes before suit, so the earliest of these dates carries the most risk if a court were to hold that one reaches MARTA.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does MARTA owe its passengers a higher standard of care?
A carrier of passengers owes extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers’ lives and persons, and once it has used that diligence it is not liable for their injuries (OCGA 46-9-132).

When can a judgment against MARTA be collected?
Section 22 bars levying execution on the Authority’s property “prior to ninety (90) days from the date of a final judgment against the Authority.”

Does the Tort Claims Act’s $1 million cap apply to MARTA?
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions on MARTA’s tort liability rest it on Section 22 of the MARTA Act. The Tort Claims Act’s definition of the State includes state authorities but leaves out counties, municipalities, school districts, other units of local government, hospital authorities, and housing and other local authorities (OCGA 50-21-22(5)).

What rules govern an assault at a MARTA station?
For causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025, the negligent security article governs claims against an owner or occupier, and foreseeability rests on a particularized warning or on prior substantially similar wrongful conduct known to the owner (OCGA 51-3-51). The jury must apportion fault among the owner, the attacker, and others, and if it fails to apportion a reasonable degree of fault to the attacker, “the trial court shall set aside the verdict of the jury and order a retrial of liability and damages” (OCGA 51-3-56).

Can MARTA be named as a defendant directly?
Yes. Section 8 of the Act gives the Authority the powers, privileges, and immunities of private corporations and of instrumentalities of government, and provides that it “may sue or be sued in its corporate name” (as quoted in Binns, 252 Ga. 289).

  • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Act, Sections 8 and 22, Ga. L. 1965, pp. 2243, 2275, as amended by Ga. L. 1971, pp. 2092, 2101, as quoted in Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Binns, 252 Ga. 289 (1984)
  • Binns v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 168 Ga. App. 261 (1983)
  • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Boswell, 261 Ga. 427 (1991)
  • City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 204 Ga. App. 387 (1992)
  • OCGA 36-33-5; OCGA 50-21-22(5); OCGA 50-21-26; OCGA 9-3-33
  • OCGA 46-9-132; OCGA 51-3-51; OCGA 51-3-56

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about injury claims involving MARTA under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Which notice rules apply, and how these rules apply to a particular injury, depend on the specific facts and current authority. A person dealing with a MARTA injury should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *