How Complications Can Arise in Determining the Legal Duty Owed to Friends and Family
By: Yamisi James
With negligence cases, the first question to ask is what duty, if any, is owed to the plaintiff. Holcomb v. Walden, 270 Ga. App. 730, 731 (2004). The duty owed by a landowner to another who enters his property depends on whether the one entering is an invitee, licensee or a trespasser. Bartlett v. Maffett, 247 Ga. App. 749, 750 (2001). With respect to invitees, a property owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises and approaches safe. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1. However, a lesser duty is owed to a licensee: a duty to avoid causing a willful or wanton injury. Jarrell v. JDC & Assocs., LLC, 296 Ga. App. 523, 525 (2009). Generally, one who controls property owes no duty to a trespasser, except not to willfully or recklessly injure him or set a mantrap. Harrison v. Plant Imp. Co, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 884, 886 (2005).
“The general test as to whether a person is an invitee or a licensee is whether the injured person at the time of the injury had present business relations with the owner of the premises which would render his presence of mutual aid to both, or whether his presence on the premises was for his own convenience, or on business with others than the owner of the premises. In the absence of some relation which inures to the benefit of the two, or to that of the owner, no invitation may be implied, and the injured person must be regarded as a licensee.” Stanton v. Griffin, 361 Ga. App. 205, 207 (2021).
Social guests, which are how we typically categorize our visiting friends and family, are usually deemed licensees under Georgia law. See Whitehead v. Green, 365 Ga. App. 610, 614 (2022). However, what may initially appear as a rather basic question in the premises liability area can become a more difficult one based upon the various facts a situation presents. Late last year, The Georgia Court of Appeals provided more insight into this issue with respect to family and friends.
In Adams v. Lee, 372 Ga. App. 783 (2024), the plaintiff initiated suit against her granddaughter and her granddaughter’s husband after a slip and fall on water at their rental home. The defendants had invited the plaintiff over to care for their son. Id. The plaintiff had already put the defendants’ son/her great-grandson down for a nap. Id. She was walking to open the door for her visiting son when she slipped on rainwater that had leaked inside the home. Id. The defendants had previously been experiencing leaks in their home and had complained to the management company, but the issue was not fixed. Id. at 784. The defendants claimed they warned the plaintiff about leaks, but the plaintiff denied receiving such warnings. Id. The plaintiff sued her granddaughter, grandson-in-law and numerous other defendants for her injuries sustained in the fall. Id.
The granddaughter and grandson-in-law defendants had summary judgment entered in their favor after the trial court found the plaintiff was a licensee at the time she fell. Id. The trial court reasoned that at the moment the plaintiff sustained her injury, she was “acting for her own interests, and not mutual benefit” as she was crossing the room to greet her son who had arrived for a visit with her. Id. The plaintiff argued her primary purpose at the defendants’ home was to care for their young son and that having a personal visitor did not change that purpose. Id. at 785. Therefore, she contended she was an invitee. Id. The court of appeals agreed with the plaintiff, stating she was an invitee because her primary purpose was to watch her great-grandson while the defendants were at work. Id. Further, the appellate court reasoned the fact that “[the plaintiff] was walking to answer the door for her son at the exact moment she fell does not alter the fact that she was the sole caretaker for the defendants’ two-year-old son.” Id. Because the court of appeals found the plaintiff was actually an invitee, and due to there being a dispute as to whether the defendants warned her about the condition of their home in light of their duty to exercise ordinary care, it reversed the granting of summary judgment. Id. at 786.
This case serves as a reminder that defendants may owe a greater duty of care to their family and friends than they may initially think.
Attorney Contact Info
Yamisi James
yamisi.james@swiftcurrie.com
404.888.6155