SB 449 Landowners Protection Act of 2008

Posted on March 13, 2008 by Jason Schultz

Since the inception of this country, and before, basic common law premises liability requires property owners, who charge money for visitors to come onto their land, to act with ‘reasonable care’ for another’s safety. If the landowner should act carelessly or negligently, they are liable in money damages for injuries caused by their carelessness.


The Georgia Senate’s recent passage of a bill giving agritourism broad immunity from civil liability demonstrates the power of special interests in Georgia. Senate Bill 449, the Landowners Protection Act of 2008, exempts agritourism businesses —- petting zoos, pick-your-own orchards, hunting preserves, farm/vacation sites —- from the standards of liability that govern all other businesses. Under current law, business owners can be held liable for injuries on their property if they fail to exercise reasonable care. Promoted by Gov. Sonny Perdue, SB 449 erases current liability standards and says that agritourism owners can only be held liable if they are wanton and willful —- a boon to the insurance policy writers who cover farms.

"This is a solution looking for a problem," said state Sen. David Adelman (D-Atlanta). "There hasn't been a single case that I know of where agritourism has been threatened by lawsuits. The current Georgia law with regard to farms and agritourism requires them to exercise ordinary care and take care of their facilities the way any other business does."

Republicans also worry about the impact of the bill. "If I knock on a farmer's door and ask if I can fish off his dock, I don't expect the dock to be in good repair," said Sen. Dan Weber (R-Dunwoody). "But if I come with friends to fish as a result of advertising by that farmer, and pay, I expect that dock to be in good repair. If I am hunting and fishing free of charge, the farmer has immunity. If he charges me money and I get hurt as a result of his negligence, he should be liable."

This bill is bad for the citizens of Georgia. If this bill passes the House, that means that landowners can take your money and practically turn a blind eye to safety on their land. Outrageous does not begin to describe this back door attempt by insurance interests further line their pockets at the expense of Georgia citizens.

There was an excellent article discussing the problems with SB 449 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  

Tags: , , , , , ,

Employer Liable for Employee on Cell Phone Conducting Company Business

Posted on October 2, 2007 by Jason Schultz

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals in Hunter v. Modern Continental, issued an important ruling for persons injured by employees who are commuting to and from work. Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that where there is evidence that the employee was on the cell phone for the employer’s business, the employer can be held liable.
With the new technology today, geography is becoming irrelevant as to when a person is working. This case does a lot to preserve the principle of vicarious liability of the company for an employees actions (respondeat superior).

In many cases, it makes a huge difference between the injured person receiving fair compensation for serious and permanent life altering injuries when he can recover from a company and not just an individual. Maintaining the integrity of vicarious liability will allow victims in Georgia a better chance at receiving a reasonable measure of justice.

Tags: , , , ,