Premises liability law holds property owners and occupiers responsible for maintaining safe environments to prevent injuries to visitors. In Georgia, these laws have seen significant developments in 2025, reflecting a balance between protecting injured parties and shielding property owners from excessive lawsuits. This blog post offers an essential overview of premises liability in Georgia and highlights key differences compared to Tennessee and Alabama law.
Understanding Premises Liability in Georgia
Premises liability in Georgia governs when and how property owners or occupiers may be held liable for injuries occurring on their land or in their buildings. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 51-3-1 sets the foundational duty of care standards:
- Invitees (those lawfully on the premises for business purposes, such as customers or contractors) are owed a duty of “ordinary care” to keep the premises safe.
- Licensees (social guests or others on the property with permission but not for business) are owed a duty to avoid willful or wanton harm.
- Trespassers usually receive minimal protection, but landowners cannot recklessly cause harm.
To succeed in a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must prove the property owner was negligent and that this negligence was the cause of the injury.
Changes from Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform (Senate Bill 68)
In 2025 Georgia enacted notable tort reform in the form of Senate Bill 68, signed into law on April 21 by Governor Brian Kemp. This legislation significantly impacts premises liability, especially negligent security claims involving third-party criminal acts.
Key components of SB 68 include:
- Tougher standards for liability: Plaintiffs must now prove property owners had specific knowledge of security risks and failed to remedy them.
- New legal defenses for property owners: Owners may seek early dismissal of baseless claims, reducing frivolous lawsuits and litigation costs.
- Bifurcated trials: Liability and damages issues may be tried separately to streamline proceedings.
- Protection for security contractors: Security contractors are liable only to the same extent as property owners.
This reform aims to reduce excessive lawsuits and balance interests, though critics argue it may restrict access to compensation for legitimate injuries—especially from criminal acts on premises.
The Impact of the Carmichael Decision on Negligent Security Claims
In recent case law, the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichaelrefined how courts assess a property owner’s duty to protect invitees from criminal acts. The Court adopted a “totality of the circumstances” test for foreseeability, allowing courts to consider multiple factors including location, local crime history, and business nature, even if no prior similar incidents occurred on that property.
This broadens plaintiffs’ ability to establish a duty of care, increasing liability exposure for property owners despite the new statutory hurdles.
How Georgia’s Premises Liability Law Compares to Tennessee and Alabama
Duty of Care
- Georgia: Duty varies by visitor classification—highest for invitees, lower for licensees, limited for trespassers.
- Tennessee: Similar visitor categories apply, but Tennessee courts impose a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to all lawful visitors, including licensees. Tennessee does not always rigidly differentiate the duty between invitees and licensees, sometimes applying a unified duty of reasonable care.
- Alabama: Alabama law follows a similar classification but requires property owners to warn trespassers of hidden dangers if they are aware of regular trespassing. Alabama also recognizes “attractive nuisance” doctrine protecting children on property.
Negligent Security Claims
- Georgia: After 2025 reforms, claims must show specific knowledge of risks and failure to act. The Carmichael “totality of circumstances” test expands what can be considered in establishing liability.
- Tennessee: Courts look for prior similar incidents to establish foreseeability but have shown a willingness to broaden factors. However, Tennessee’s law lacks recent sweeping statutory reforms like Georgia’s SB 68.
- Alabama: Negligent security claims are recognized, but Alabama courts generally require strong evidence of prior criminal incidents or specific threats to property owners before imposing liability.
Damages and Liability Limits
- Georgia: SB 68 introduces clearer rules for apportioning fault between owners, third parties, and other entities. It also restricts certain evidence to avoid “phantom damages” in trials.
- Tennessee: Tennessee follows comparative fault rules but lacks explicit statutory limits on premises liability damages similar to Georgia’s recent reforms.
- Alabama: Uses contributory negligence, which can bar recovery if the injured person is found even slightly negligent. This is stricter than the comparative fault systems in Georgia and Tennessee.
Practical Implications for Property Owners and Injured Parties
For property owners in Georgia, the 2025 changes signal the need for rigorous security assessments and documentation. Enhancing safety and staying abreast of crime trends in the vicinity can mitigate liability risks. Property owners are now better positioned to move quickly to dismiss groundless claims, potentially reducing legal expenses.
For injured parties, these reforms present new evidentiary challenges. They must gather comprehensive proof, including demonstrating specific knowledge of security threats, to overcome heightened liability standards. The Carmichael decision is a key legal tool that plaintiffs can use to argue for a property owner’s duty under broader circumstances.
Conclusion
Premises liability law in Georgia continues to evolve with a trend toward balancing business protections and victim rights. The 2025 tort reform and recent case law introduce more stringent proof requirements for negligent security claims, while offering property owners legal tools to defend themselves more effectively. Compared to Tennessee and Alabama, Georgia stands out for its recent statutory reforms and nuanced judicial approaches, especially in handling third-party criminal acts on property.
Property owners and legal professionals should stay informed about these ongoing changes to navigate premises liability claims effectively. Injured parties should seek experienced legal counsel to understand the complexities of Georgia’s shifting legal landscape and enforce their rights.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!