Mclamb v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah

Gloria McLamb tripped on a raised sidewalk paver while walking through Savannah's historic district after a sightseeing trip and sued the City of Savannah. The City argued it was immune from liability under Georgia's Recreational Property Act, which protects landowners who let the public use their property for free recreational purposes. A trial court denied the City's request to throw out the case, but the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, ruling the City was immune because McLamb herself had been sightseeing and looking at a tree when she fell. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed to review whether the Court of Appeals applied the right test. The court reaffirmed its earlier test from Mercer University v. Stofer, which asks about the nature of the activity the public was generally invited to do and the nature of the property, not what one visitor happened to be doing at the moment of injury. Because the Court of Appeals had treated McLamb's personal activity as decisive, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent the case back for the test to be applied correctly.

The Recreational Property Act's immunity test asks primarily what activity the public was generally invited to engage in and what the property was generally used for, not what the specific injured person was doing at the moment of injury; a plaintiff's own activity is only one relevant factor, not a decisive one.

The ruling affects how Georgia cities, counties, and other landowners can use the Recreational Property Act as a shield against lawsuits over injuries on public sidewalks, parks, and historic sites. Injured visitors and their lawyers can no longer be defeated simply because a court focuses narrowly on the plaintiff's own activity at the moment of injury.

Vacated and remanded

1. The court explained that the Recreational Property Act (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq.) gives landowners immunity from lawsuits when they let the public use their land for free for recreational activities, and reaffirmed the test from Mercer University v. Stofer for deciding when that immunity applies.
2. Under the Stofer test, courts must find the 'true scope and nature' of the landowner's invitation by looking at (1) the nature of the activity the public was invited to do and (2) the nature of the property itself, both judged from the landowner's and the public's perspective rather than any one visitor's perspective.
3. The court rejected the City's request to overrule or narrow Stofer, finding that test correctly reflects the statute's text, which asks what the landowner invited people to do, not what an individual plaintiff subjectively intended or actually did.
4. The court found that the Court of Appeals of Georgia had gone wrong by treating McLamb's own testimony about sightseeing and looking at a tree as decisive proof that the activity was recreational, when that personal conduct is only one piece of evidence about what the public generally was invited to do.
5. Because an individual plaintiff's actual activity at the moment of injury is not dispositive, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded the Court of Appeals must redo its analysis of both the nature of the activity and, potentially, the nature of the property, using the properly weighted test.

• Recreational Property Act
• trip and fall lawsuit
• Savannah sidewalk injury
• municipal immunity
• premises liability