Pattman v

Mann, 307 Ga. App. 413, 701 S.E.2d 232 (2010). 2. Engineering Profession A. In General Third-party complaint against an architectural firm, which was being sued in a wrongful death action for alleged faulty design and construction of a heating system, was subject to the affidavit filing requirement of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1. Housing Auth. v. Gilpin & Bazemore/Architects & Planners, Inc., 191 Ga. App. 400, 381 S.E.2d 550, appeal dismissed, 259 Ga. 435, 383 S.E.2d 867 (1989). Engineers. — O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1 applies to professional engineers that are licensed by the State of Georgia. Goolsby v. Gain Techs., Inc., No. 08-16587, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1380 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010) (Unpublished). Engineering profession. — Requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1(a) apply to the engineering profession. Kneip v. Southern Eng’g Co., 260 Ga. 409, 395 S.E.2d 809 (1990). Dismissal of a claim for engineering malpractice for failure to file the required affidavit would have been unfair since cases applying O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1 to nonmedical malpractice actions had not been decided until after the complaint was filed. Kneip v. Southern Eng’g Co., 260 Ga. 409, 395 S.E.2d 809 (1990). 9-11-9.1 While the design of a bridge or guardrail must necessarily involve professional (engineering) services, the installation, repair, and maintenance of those structures would not necessarily require the exercise of professional skill and judgment. Adams v. Coweta County, 208 Ga. App. 334, 430 S.E.2d 599 (1993). In a wrongful death action against the Department of Transportation (DOT), the trial court erred in dismissing as insufficient DOT’s defense based on plaintiff ’s failure to file an expert affidavit in support of a claim involving a question of professional negligence by highway engineers. DOT v. Taunton, 217 Ga. App. 232, 457 S.E.2d 570 (1995). Trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff ’s complaint on the ground that the plaintiff ’s expert’s affidavit was insufficient to meet the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1 since the expert supplemented the affidavit with testimony adequate to aver that DOT failed to comply substantially with engineering standards applicable at the time an intersection was planned and designed as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-24(10). Lennen v. DOT, 239 Ga. App. 729, 521 S.E.2d 885 (1999). In an action against engineers for professional malpractice, the plaintiff was required to file an expert’s affidavit with the plaintiff ’s complaint, and the proper consequence for the plaintiff ’s failure to do so was dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. v. Balfour Beatty Constr., Inc., 246 Ga. App. 93, 539 S.E.2d 828 (2000). Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a defendant engineer on a plaintiff ’s professional negligence claim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1 since the plaintiff ’s complaint showed on the complaint’s face that the complaint involved an allegation of professional negligence that required an expert affidavit under § 9-11-9.1(a) and (d)(21), and the plaintiff failed to file such an affidavit with the complaint; the plaintiff ’s pro se status did not exempt the plaintiff from complying with the affidavit requirement of § 9-11-9.1. Dockens v.