Normally, Suing Cities over Broken Sidewalks is Viable, Not so if its a Historic District
This case, , centers on whether the City of Savannah is immune from liability under the Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA) when a visitor, McLamb, tripped and fell on a raised paver in a sidewalk located in a historic district.
Key Holdings:
1. Summary Judgment Standard:
The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, meaning they look at the facts and law fresh, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff who had to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. Application of the RPA:
The RPA(Recreational Property Act) limits liability for landowners who allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes without charging a fee. It states that owners do not owe a duty of care to keep premises safe or warn of dangers to recreational users. Keep in mind the key “for free” requirement. If they charge for access then the RPA does not apply.
3. Definition of Recreational Use:
The statute explicitly includes “viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites” as recreational purposes. The court applies a two-part test from *Mercer Univ. v. Stofer* to determine if the RPA applies:
– The nature of the activity the plaintiff was engaged in (was it recreational?).
– The nature of the property (was it primarily recreational or commercial?).
4. Factual Findings:
McLamb was sightseeing and enjoying the historic district, which is a recreational activity under the RPA. The sidewalk was city-owned, free to use, and located in a historic district, so the property was primarily recreational.
5. Constitutionality of the RPA:
The trial court had ruled the RPA unconstitutional as applied, citing equal protection concerns (tourists vs. locals) saying that people are getting treated differently based on whether they are inside or outside of a historic district. The appellate court rejected this, citing Georgia Supreme Court precedent that the RPA is constitutional and rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Here’s the problem, I think the Court screwed up. The argument wasn’t that people are getting treated differently based on whether they are inside or outside of the district, instead the RPA does not shield a local because they are not using the sidewalk for sightseeing, they use it for transport only. It’s the use of the same sidewalk that is treated differently. I think they got this part wrong.
6. Outcome:
Because both the activity and property were recreational, the City is immune under the RPA. The trial court erred in denying the City’s motion for summary judgment.
—
How This Affects Other Injury Cases on Summary Judgment
This ruling clarifies that when a plaintiff is injured on property that is primarily recreational and engaged in recreational activities (like sightseeing, hiking, or attending free outdoor events), the landowner or government entity may be entitled to immunity under the RPA. This immunity can be a strong basis for winning summary judgment because it removes the duty of care element.
Common fact patterns where this applies:
– A hiker trips on a root or uneven trail in a city park.
– A visitor slips on a wet surface while attending a free outdoor concert in a public park.
– A tourist falls while walking on a historic walking tour route or public garden.
– A cyclist is injured on a free public bike trail maintained by a municipality.
In each of these, if the landowner can show the property is primarily recreational and the activity is recreational, they may claim immunity under the RPA, making summary judgment appropriate.
Summary for Dummies
This case is about a woman who was visiting Savannah and fell on a raised stone in the sidewalk while walking through a historic area. She sued the City, saying they were responsible for her injury. The City argued they shouldn’t be held responsible because the sidewalk was part of a recreational area where people can walk and enjoy the sights for free.
The law they relied on, called the Recreational Property Act, says that if a property owner lets people use their land for fun activities like sightseeing or hiking without charging them, the owner usually isn’t responsible if someone gets hurt. The court agreed with the City because the woman was walking for fun and sightseeing, and the sidewalk was part of a public historic area meant for recreation.
So, the court said the City didn’t have to pay because they were protected by this law. This means if you get hurt while doing something recreational on public land, the owner of that land might not be responsible, especially if they didn’t charge you to be there.
What do you think about the ruling?