Mayor of Garden City v. Harris
809 S.E.2d 806, 302 Ga. 853 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Georgia's Recreational Property Act (RPA), a landowner is immune from liability for injuries sustained by a person who was permitted to use the property for recreational purposes without charge, even if the landowner charged other people an admission fee to use the property for the same event.
Facts:
- The City of Garden City owned and maintained the Garden City Stadium.
- On November 10, 2012, Willie and Kristy Harris attended a youth football game at the stadium with their six-year-old daughter, Riley.
- Willie and Kristy Harris each paid the required $2 admission fee for spectators over the age of six.
- Because Riley was six years old, she was admitted to the stadium free of charge.
- While walking on the bleachers to return to her seat from the concession stand, Riley slipped.
- Riley fell through a gap between the bench seats to the ground nearly thirty feet below, suffering serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The Harrises sued the City of Garden City in a Georgia trial court to recover damages for their daughter Riley's injuries.
- The City filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity under the Recreational Property Act.
- The trial court denied the City's motion for summary judgment.
- The City, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the City was not entitled to immunity.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted the City's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Georgia Recreational Property Act (OCGA § 51-3-20 et seq.) shield a landowner from liability for injuries sustained by a person who was not charged an admission fee, even when the landowner charged other attendees an admission fee for the same recreational event?
Opinions:
Majority - Melton, Presiding Justice
Yes. The Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA) shields a landowner from liability under these circumstances. The plain language of OCGA § 51-3-23 grants immunity with respect to 'any person' who is permitted to use the property 'without charge' and specifies that the landowner owes no duty of care to 'such person.' This statutory language is individual-specific, meaning the immunity analysis focuses on whether the injured party herself was charged a fee. The exception in OCGA § 51-3-25(2), which removes immunity when a landowner 'charges the person or persons who enter,' applies only to those specific persons who were charged. Because Riley was admitted free of charge, the City is shielded from liability for her injuries, even though her parents paid an admission fee. This interpretation aligns with the RPA's legislative purpose of encouraging landowners to make property available for public recreation, as it permits them to offer free admission to select groups without voiding their liability protection for those non-paying individuals.
Dissenting - Hunstein, Justice
No. The RPA does not shield the landowner from liability when an admission fee is generally charged for the event, regardless of whether the injured individual paid it. The RPA must be strictly construed as it is in derogation of common law. The general immunity provision in § 51-3-23 is explicitly subject to the exceptions in § 51-3-25. The exception in § 51-3-25(2) removes immunity 'in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter,' which should be interpreted to mean that if a landowner charges for admission to the property for an event, the immunity is lost for all attendees of that event. Decades of Georgia precedent establish that the key criterion is whether the 'property' is open to the public free of charge, not whether a specific individual paid. The majority's person-specific interpretation creates an absurd result where similarly injured individuals have unequal rights of recovery and allows landowners to 'cherry-pick' who they may be liable to.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of Georgia's Recreational Property Act by establishing a person-specific approach to immunity in mixed-fee situations. It shifts the analysis from whether the property was generally open for a fee to whether the specific injured person paid a fee. This ruling strengthens protections for landowners, giving them certainty that offering free or discounted admission to certain groups (e.g., children, veterans) will not destroy their immunity with respect to those non-paying guests. The decision effectively narrows the 'charge' exception, making it harder for plaintiffs who did not personally pay a fee to overcome the RPA's liability shield.
