---
title: SB 223. "Pro People, Pro Business Act"; enact
collection: bills
id: 2025-2026/sb223
cite_as: SB 223, 2025-2026 Regular Session (Ga.)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb223
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb223.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb223/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/70596
date: 2025-02-21
status: introduced
corpus_version: bills-2026-09-13
license: Public record of the Georgia General Assembly, via LegiScan; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb222.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb224.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/index.md
omitted: votes and history
omitted_chars: 95
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb223.md?full=1
bill_number: SB 223
session: 2025-2026 Regular Session
session_slug: 2025-2026
chamber: Senate
bill_type: bill
status_date: 2025-02-20
last_action: Senate Read and Referred
sponsors:
- Harold Jones
- Kim Jackson
- Elena Parent
- Sonya Halpern
- Jason Esteves
- Nan Orrock
- Derek Mallow
text_version: Introduced
has_text: true
legiscan_url: https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/SB223/2025
upstream_id: 1978305
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
topic_tags:
- premises liability
- personal injury lawsuits
- property owner responsibilities
- crime prevention
- tort law
---
# SB 223. "Pro People, Pro Business Act"; enact
## Text
Senate Bill 223
By: Senators Jones II of the 22nd, Jackson of the 41st, Parent of the 44th, Halpern of the
39th, Esteves of the 35th and others
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
To amend Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated,
relating to general provisions relative to liability of owners and occupiers of land, so as to
limit liability for premises liability actions unless claimants can show certain facts; to provide
for affirmative defenses; to provide for rebuttable presumptions; to provide for a short title;
to provide for definitions; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date and
applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and cited as the "Pro People, Pro Business Act."
SECTION 2.
Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to
general provisions, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:
"51-3-1.1.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) 'Claimant' means any person or any person's survivor, conservator, next friend, or
other legal representative, including, but not limited to, an administrator of a decedent's
estate, who seeks recovery of damages under this Code section.
(2) 'Crime deterrence and safety education' means training which instructs and
familiarizes employees of the owner or occupier with the security principles, devices, and
measures and which complies with standards as developed by the Commissioner of
Insurance and reviewed and updated at least every three years.
(3) 'Owner or occupier of land' means any person that owns, leases, occupies, operates,
maintains, or manages real property of any kind or any director, officer, employee, or
agent of such person.
(4) 'Premises' means the real property that is owned, leased, occupied, operated,
maintained, or managed by an owner or occupier.
(5) 'Security camera system' means a digital surveillance system that captures and
records video on a continuous basis consisting of at least four cameras that capture
images at a minimum resolution of 4MP, 1440p, and a minimum of 24 frames per second
that are arranged to record video from inside and outside a premises' entrances and exits
and at least 200 feet from outside the building, and any recording remains retrievable for
not less than 30 days.
(6) 'Security contractor' means any person or entity that by express or implied agreement,
or by law, assumes a duty, has authority to provide a service, or otherwise acts for or on
behalf of an owner or occupier of land to provide protective security services upon any
premises and any director, officer, employee, or agent of such person or entity.
(7) 'Third-party' means any person that is not a claimant, an owner or occupier of land,
including, but not limited, to any director, officer, employee, or agent of an owner or
occupier of land, or the employee, agent, or any other person on the premises or
approaches providing a service for or on behalf of the owner or occupier of land.
(8) 'Wrongful conduct' means:
(A) Any violation of a law or ordinance of this state, or any subdivision thereof,
including, but not limited to, counties, consolidated governments, and municipalities,
that could constitute a misdemeanor or felony regardless of whether such violation
results in an arrest, conviction, or guilty plea; or
(B) Any other act that amounts to an intentional tort or willful and wanton conduct.
(b) An owner or occupier of land shall not be liable for any injury arising from third-party
wrongful conduct unless a claimant can demonstrate that:
(1) The third-party wrongful conduct at issue was reasonably foreseeable pursuant to
subsection (c) of this Code section; and
(2) The owner or occupier of land failed to take reasonable precautions to protect
invitees from third-party wrongful conduct.
(c) Third-party wrongful conduct is reasonably foreseeable when:
(1) Such third-party wrongful conduct was sufficient to put the owner or occupier of land
on notice of the potential harm; and
(2)(A) Such third-party wrongful conduct was substantially similar to prior occurrences
of third-party wrongful conduct in close physical proximity to the premises;
(B) The condition of the premises or approaches gave the owner or occupier of land
sufficient notice to anticipate the criminal act giving rise to the claimant's injuries; or
(C) The danger of the third-party wrongful conduct occurrence is so obvious and
probable to occur that no reasonable argument could be made against foreseeability.
(d) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an owner or occupier of land is on notice
of substantially similar prior occurrences of third-party wrongful conduct when such
conduct:
(1) Occurred within 200 yards of the premises;
(2) Occurred on the premises or its approaches;
(3) Occurred reasonably close in time to the third-party wrongful conduct at issue;
(4) Occurred frequently; or
(5) Was of a kind of conduct that a reasonable person would find similar to the conduct
at issue.
(e) In addition to any other available defenses, it shall be an affirmative defense to an
action brought under this Code section if:
(1) No wrongful conduct had previously occurred on the premises or approaches other
than the third-party wrongful conduct giving rise to the claimant's injuries, even if such
premises or approaches are situated in a high crime area, except where the claimant can
establish that the owner or occupier of land had sufficient reason to anticipate the
third-party wrongful conduct; and
(2) The claimant:
(A) Entered the premises or approaches for the purpose of committing a crime against
the premises or approaches or against a person on the premises or approaches and is not
a victim of a crime under Code Section 16-5-46; or
(B) Is not an invitee.
(f) An owner or occupier of land shall have a rebuttable presumption against liability for
third-party wrongful conduct where, at the time of injury, the owner or occupier of land
establishes that he or she has:
(1) Provided crime deterrence and safety education to current employees by July 1, 2026,
and after July 1, 2026, provides such training to new employees within 60 days of the
date of hire; and
(2) Substantially complied with this subsection by implementing the following security
measures on the premises:
(A) An installed security camera system;
(B) A lighted parking lot illuminated at an intensity of at least an average of 1.8
foot-candles per square foot at 18 inches above the surface from dusk until dawn or
controlled by photocell or any similar device which provides light from dusk until
dawn;
(C) Window signage that allows a clear and unobstructed view from outside the
building and in a normal line of sight of the cash register and sales transaction area;
(D) A drop safe or cash management device for restricted access to cash receipts;
(E) No window tinting that reduces exterior or interior view in a normal line of sight;
and
(F) A security contractor on the premises at all times after 5 P.M. and before 7 A.M.
(g) If the premises contain a residential building, or a group of residential buildings, such
as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums, consisting of at least five dwelling units, in
addition to the security measures in paragraph (2) of subsection (f) of this Code section, an
owner or occupier shall have a rebuttable presumption against premises liability for
third-party wrongful conduct where, at the time of injury, the owner or occupier has:
(1) By July 1, 2026, a crime prevention through environmental design assessment
conducted by a certified practitioner or law enforcement agency within the past three
years, where the residential building or buildings are in substantial compliance with the
assessment; and
(2) Substantially complied with this subsection by implementing the following safety
measures on the premises:
(A) At least a one-inch deadbolt in each dwelling exterior door;
(B) A locking device on each window, each exterior sliding door, and any other doors
not used for community purposes;
(C) A peephole or other door view on each dwelling unit that does not have a window
or a window next to the exterior door;
(D) Lighting in walkways and laundry rooms, common areas, and porches, provided
that such lighting is illuminated from dusk until dawn or controlled by photocell or any
similar electronic device that provides light from dusk until dawn; and
(E) Locked gates with key or fob access along pool fence areas if applicable.
(h) The rebuttable presumption created by this Code section shall only be overcome by
clear and convincing evidence.
(i) Failure to provide the safety measures in subsections (f) and (g) of this Code section
shall not create a presumption that the premises are not safe.
(j) The state shall have no liability in connection with providing a training curriculum
under this Code section."
SECTION 3.
This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2025, and shall apply to all causes of action
arising and all insurance policies issued on or after such date.
SECTION 4.
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
## Summaries written by Georgia Commons
The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the text above and is not part of the bill. Quote the text, not the summary.
Senate Bill 223 would make it harder for people hurt by crime on someone else's property in Georgia to sue the property owner, unless they can show the crime was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable safety precautions.
### Plain-language summary
Under current Georgia law, property owners can sometimes be sued when a customer, tenant, or visitor is hurt by a crime committed by a third party on their premises, if the crime was foreseeable. This bill, called the 'Pro People, Pro Business Act,' adds a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.1) that raises the bar for these 'premises liability' lawsuits. It requires the injured person (the claimant) to prove both that the crime was reasonably foreseeable and that the owner failed to take reasonable safety precautions.
The bill spells out when a crime counts as foreseeable, creates a presumption that owners are on notice of danger under certain conditions, and gives owners new legal defenses, including one if no similar crime had ever happened on the property before. It also creates a rebuttable presumption against liability for owners who provide staff safety training and install specific security measures, such as cameras, lighting, and cash-handling equipment, and gives apartment complexes a separate set of qualifying measures. The changes would take effect July 1, 2025, and apply to lawsuits and insurance policies from that date forward.
### What it does
- Creates a new Georgia law requiring injured visitors to prove a crime was foreseeable and that the property owner failed to take reasonable precautions before the owner can be held liable.
- Defines when third-party criminal conduct counts as 'reasonably foreseeable,' including prior similar crimes nearby or an obvious danger.
- Sets up a rebuttable presumption that owners had notice of danger if similar crimes happened within 200 yards of the property, on the property, or frequently.
- Gives owners an affirmative defense if no crime had previously happened on the property, even in a high-crime area, unless the claimant proves otherwise.
- Creates a rebuttable presumption against liability for owners who train staff in crime prevention and install specified security measures like cameras, lighting, and cash drop safes by July 1, 2026.
- Sets a separate set of qualifying security steps, such as deadbolts and lit walkways, for apartment complexes and other residential buildings with five or more units.
### Who it affects
Property owners and businesses that host the public, such as stores, apartment complexes, and landlords; people injured by crimes committed by others on someone else's property; insurance companies that write premises liability policies; and courts handling these lawsuits.
### Why it matters
People hurt by crimes on someone else's property would face a higher legal bar to win a lawsuit, needing to prove foreseeability and lack of precautions. Property owners who install listed security measures and train staff would gain stronger legal protection against being sued, which could affect insurance costs and safety investments.
### Key provisions
- Section 2 adds O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.1, defining terms like 'claimant,' 'wrongful conduct,' 'security camera system,' and 'crime deterrence and safety education.'
- Subsection (b) bars liability for third-party crime injuries unless the claimant proves the crime was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable precautions.
- Subsection (c) defines when wrongful conduct is 'reasonably foreseeable,' including substantially similar prior nearby incidents or an obvious, probable danger.
- Subsection (d) creates a rebuttable presumption of notice for owners when similar crimes occurred within 200 yards, on the premises, recently, frequently, or in a similar manner.
- Subsection (e) provides an affirmative defense if no prior wrongful conduct occurred on the premises, or if the claimant was there to commit a crime or was not an invitee.
- Subsections (f) and (g) create rebuttable presumptions against liability for owners who provide safety training and install specific security measures, with separate requirements for residential buildings of five or more units.
- Subsection (h) requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome these rebuttable presumptions, a higher standard than normal civil cases.
- Section 3 sets the effective date as July 1, 2025, applying to causes of action and insurance policies issued on or after that date.
## Status
- Status: Introduced (2025-02-20)
- Last action: Senate Read and Referred (2025-02-21)
- Sponsors: Harold Jones, Kim Jackson, Elena Parent, Sonya Halpern, Jason Esteves, Nan Orrock, Derek Mallow
- Official page: https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/70596
> The history, votes, and amendments (95 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb223.md?full=1