In August 2026, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a decision affecting how Savannah property owners defend injury claims on land open to the public. The case centers on the Georgia Recreational Property Act, a statute that can shield owners from liability. For anyone hurt on public property, the ruling changes how courts decide whether that shield applies.
The Case Behind the Decision
The lawsuit, McLamb v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, involved a visitor injured on a city-owned sidewalk in the National Historic Landmark District. The City argued it owed her no duty of care because she was sightseeing, an activity the Act lists as recreational.
The Court of Appeals agreed and ruled for the City. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment.
As coverage of the unanimous decision notes, the case now returns to the Court of Appeals.
What the Supreme Court Clarified
Under the Act, an owner who lets the public use land for recreational purposes without charge generally owes no duty to keep it safe or warn of dangers. Whether that protection applies depends on the true scope of the owner’s invitation to the public.
The Court of Appeals focused on what the injured woman was doing when she was hurt. That was the mistake. According to the Supreme Court, the proper inquiry is what the public is generally invited to do on the property.
Two Factors Courts Weigh
Under the test the court first set out in Mercer University v. Stofer in 2019, two related factors shape that invitation:
- The nature of the activity the public is invited to engage in on the property.
- The nature of the property itself, including whether it is used primarily for recreational or commercial purposes.
A plaintiff’s own activity still counts. But it’s only one factor and can’t settle the question alone.
What the Ruling Means for Crime Victims
Our practice focuses on people harmed by violent crime on properties that lacked reasonable security. Parks, squares, and riverfront walkways draw large crowds in Savannah, and an owner facing a negligent security claim tied to free public land may raise the Act as a defense.
This decision makes that defense harder to stretch. Courts must look at the owner’s actual invitation rather than labeling a victim’s visit as recreation. The Act also does not protect an owner who willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, and it generally does not reach hotels, apartment complexes, or other properties opened primarily for commercial activity.
Whether the Act covers a particular property depends on specific facts, which a Savannah, GA premises liability lawyer can review.
Our Record in Premises Liability Cases
Deitch + Rogers has represented crime victims in premises liability and negligent security cases across Georgia for more than 40 years. Results include:
- A $10 million recovery for a shooting at a commercial property
- A $9.75 million recovery for a shooting victim left paralyzed
- A $5.1 million verdict against a hotel following a fatal shooting
If a violent crime on someone else’s property left you injured, contact our office to speak with a Savannah premises liability lawyer.
