The family of Cornelius Taylor, an unhoused man who was killed during a city-led encampment sweep earlier this year, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Atlanta. The suit, filed on July 18 in Fulton County Superior Court, accuses city officials and workers of negligence in Taylor’s death and seeks justice not only for the 46-year-old but for broader policy changes surrounding the treatment of unhoused individuals in Atlanta and beyond.

On the morning of January 16, 2025, as city workers carried out a planned clearance of a homeless encampment in Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward neighborhood, a bulldozer operated by the city’s Department of Public Works flattened a tent—unbeknownst to its operators, someone was still inside. That man was Cornelius Taylor. He was asleep when the machinery struck his shelter, delivering crushing injuries that would prove fatal. According to medical findings detailed in the complaint, Taylor suffered a split pelvis, severe lacerations to his liver and spleen, and massive internal bleeding.

The sweep occurred just days before the city’s scheduled Martin Luther King Jr. Day festivities, a timeline the lawsuit argues led to a rushed and hazardous operation. Taylor was transported to a local hospital but succumbed to his injuries shortly afterward.

Represented by Davis Bozeman Johnson Law, Taylor’s family contends that the city failed at multiple levels to ensure basic safety during the sweep. The complaint names the City of Atlanta, the unidentified bulldozer operator, and other public employees involved in the operation, accusing them of gross negligence and reckless disregard for life.

“Had anyone taken the time to look inside the tent, Cornelius would still be with us today,” said Mawuli Davis, one of the attorneys representing the family, in comments accompanying the suit. The legal action not only seeks damages for medical and funeral expenses but calls for a reevaluation of city policies that, the family believes, prioritize expediency over safety and dignity.

The lawsuit portrays Taylor’s death as part of a broader systemic failure to acknowledge the humanity of unhoused people, referring to current clearance practices as treating them like “invisible” members of society. Additionally, the lawsuit challenges the city’s rationale for such sweeps, arguing that they often serve event-driven aesthetic goals rather than long-term housing solutions.

At the center of the family’s efforts is Darlene Chaney, Taylor’s sister, who has become a vocal advocate for homeless rights following her brother’s death. Chaney described her brother as a man with dreams and a strong will to rebuild his life. “They can’t be in tents on the street,” she said. “So let’s get them housing. This is what we’ve been aiming to do… But we can’t do it alone.”

For the family, financial compensation is not the primary goal. Their lawsuit aims to bring about structural reform—an end to punitive sweeps and the implementation of stable, long-term housing options managed with dignity and care. The legal team has indicated that they hope the outcome of this case sends a message not just to Atlanta but to municipalities nationwide.

In response to Taylor’s death, Atlanta officials convened a 90-day task force to scrutinize and revise the city’s approach to homeless encampment removals. In June 2025, new protocols were introduced, designed to enhance communication with unhoused communities and increase safety precautions during clearances.

A spokesperson for Mayor Andre Dickens’ office acknowledged the incident, calling it “a tragedy,” but declined to comment further, citing ongoing litigation.

Despite the reforms, housing advocates and Taylor’s family remain skeptical. They argue that policy adjustments fall short without addressing Atlanta’s broader affordable housing crisis. Some also point to the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision that authorized cities to ban unhoused encampments, warning that it may embolden strict enforcement without offering robust alternatives.

Taylor’s death, and the lawsuit it has now prompted, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing national conversation about homelessness, urban policy, and public accountability. As the case moves forward, it raises difficult questions about the obligations of cities to their most vulnerable residents—and what it truly means to protect life in public spaces.