Joshua Chang's death was a tragedy, and nothing about the appellate process changes the seriousness of that loss or the sympathy we continue to feel for his family.

At the same time, the City has a responsibility to keep residents and taxpayers informed about the status of the litigation. On March 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a decision that was a positive development for Milton. The Court overturned the Court of Appeals’ prior ruling and held that the City’s duty to keep streets safe for ordinary travel does not extend beyond the lanes of travel used in the ordinary course. That ruling addressed the City’s primary area of exposure in a manner favorable to the City

The case is not concluded. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Georgia Court of Appeals to address additional issues that remain in the appeal. The Court of Appeals has now directed the parties to file supplemental filings on those issues. The City's legal team will submit those filings this June, and briefing by all parties is expected to be completed by July. Milton will then await the Court of Appeals' ruling.

Throughout this process, the City has worked to protect Milton taxpayers from the financial impact of the judgment. The Supreme Court's favorable decision improved the City's position, and the City will continue to pursue all available options to protect the City and its taxpayers.

August 21, 2026 Update: Milton Takes the Lead

The statement above reflects the status of the case following the Supreme Court of Georgia’s March 2026 decision. After that positive ruling, the case returned to the Court of Appeals. Rather than wait for the next ruling, Milton’s leaders acted proactively to guide the City toward achieving litigation closure and financial certainty. Acting on behalf of the City and with the City Council’s support for pursuing mediation, Mayor Peyton Jamison and Councilmember Carol Cookerly worked toward a responsible resolution that would protect taxpayers, reduce financial uncertainty, and bring finality to a long and difficult matter.

That effort culminated in a July 29 multi-party mediation. Mayor Jamison and Councilmember Cookerly took active roles in the process, helping keep the parties focused on a practical path forward. Their leadership turned Milton’s first direct opportunity to resolve the matter into a proposed $10 million agreement.

Their direct participation helped convert an open-ended financial exposure into a defined and manageable obligation. As of August 20, 2026, the $32.55 million judgment and approximately $11.54 million in accrued post-judgment interest represented potential exposure of approximately $44.09 million. Under the proposed agreement, the City’s contribution would be $3.33 million, with GIRMA contributing the remaining $6.67 million.

The agreement would also create a path to end the continued accumulation of City-paid legal fees, interest exposure, and appellate uncertainty. The City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed agreement on Monday, August 24, 2026.

What the proposed agreement would accomplish

• Settle and fully resolve the litigation for $10 million.
• Provide full mutual releases among the plaintiffs, the City, and GIRMA, for the claims defined in the agreement.
• Resolve all claims without an admission of wrongdoing by any party.
• Bring finality and certainty to the issue for Milton and its taxpayers.

Financial context

• As of August 20, 2026, the $32.55 million judgment plus approximately $11.54 million in post-judgment interest produced a potential City financial obligation of approximately $44.09 million.
• The $44.09 million figure is provided for context.
• The City has incurred approximately $90,000 in direct legal fees beyond costs paid by GIRMA. Those City-paid fees would continue to grow if the litigation continued.

The proposed agreement is the product of Milton’s decision to act when the City finally had meaningful input in the litigation process. If approved and fully executed, it would conclude the dispute and avoid additional expense and financial uncertainty. The questions and answers below explain the proposed settlement, its financial impact and the considerations that informed the City’s decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the City of Milton involved in the defense of this case? 
No. The City's insurer, the Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency (GIRMA), provided the City a defense attorney and controlled litigation strategy.

Were the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, or other city officials asked to approve or disapprove settlement negotiations with plaintiff’s attorney? 
No.  The City was not asked to approve or disapprove settlement negotiations with the plaintiff prior to the jury verdict. While settlement offers were made by the plaintiff during the course of the litigation, GIRMA rejected those offers and no settlement agreement was reached.

What is the proposed settlement?
The proposed Settlement Agreement and Full Release of All Claims provides for a total payment of $10 million. GIRMA, on behalf of itself would pay $6,666,666.67, and the City of Milton would pay $3,333,333.33. The agreement also contains mutual releases and the legal steps needed to conclude the litigation.

Has the City Council approved the agreement?
No. The agreement is proposed and is scheduled for public consideration by the Mayor and City Council on Monday, August 24, 2026.

When would the agreement take effect, and when would payment be due?
The agreement becomes effective after all parties approve it and sign.

Where would the City's payment come from?
The City's $3,333,333.33 share would come from fund balance. The City has been pragmatic in its approach and planned for all outcomes. This settlement will not reduce current service levels or staffing, delay planned capital projects, change the fund-balance policy, or require a tax increase.

Why settle after the Supreme Court ruled for Milton?
The Supreme Court's March 2026 decision improved Milton's position on one issue, but it did not decide every potential immunity waiver. Remand, further litigation, interest exposure, financial uncertainty, and legal costs remained. The mediated settlement creates a defined, manageable endpoint that protects Milton taxpayers.

Is this a victory for the City?
No. Joshua Chang's death was a tragedy, and the City is not celebrating the loss or the payment. The practical outcome is that the dispute will end with certainty and a defined City contribution once all required steps are complete.

Does the proposed settlement mean the City admits fault?
No. It is not an admission of liability, negligence, causation, damages, coverage, bad faith, breach of duty, breach of contract, or wrongdoing by any party.

What happens to the appeal and judgment?
After the settlement amount is received and clears, all parties to the litigation will cooperate in asking the Court of Appeals to take no further action on the case. While no party has the right to force the Court of Appeals to stop considering the case, the parties believe there is a reasonable chance that upon the Court learning of the settlement, it will discontinue its review.  Even if the Court of Appeals continued reviewing the matter, once the mediated agreement is fully signed by all parties, the agreement will control and any appellate ruling would have no direct financial impact on Milton.

Why not continue the litigation?
No outcome is guaranteed. This mediated settlement converts an unknown, potentially exorbitant outcome into a controlled, defined, and financially manageable outcome. Continuing the case would mean additional City legal fees, potential interest exposure, and continued financial uncertainty. The City has already incurred approximately $90,000 in direct legal fees beyond costs paid by GIRMA, and those City-paid fees would continue to grow.

What is the approximately $44.09 million accrued-value figure?
It represents the verdict in this case of $32.5 million, increased by mandatory post-judgment interest of $11.54 million. It is not the proposed settlement amount and should not be described as a current amount owed.

Why were earlier settlement opportunities not resolved?
Before the jury verdict, settlement decisions were controlled exclusively through the insurer. Milton's first opportunity to resolve the matter came after the Supreme Court ruling during the mediation process.

What issue did the Supreme Court decide that was considered favorable to the City?
The Court held that the mandatory obligation of cities to maintain their roads free from defects did not extend to keeping areas obstruction-free outside the lanes used for vehicular travel in the ordinary course.

What legal questions did the Supreme Court leave unresolved?
The Court did not decide whether a nuisance causing personal injury also caused a waiver of city immunity. That question, and others, required further litigation.

What has the City done about roadway safety?
Since 2016, Milton has strengthened how potential hazards in the public right-of-way are identified and addressed. The City amended its code to require engineering-based safety evaluations of fixed objects and established a process for directing removal when City engineers determine it is warranted. Public Works also issued removal notices for noncompliant structures and formalized right-of-way permitting responsibilities. These steps provide clearer standards, better information and stronger tools to address safety concerns. We will continue applying and improving these processes as needed.