Georgia retains the common-law three-tier invitee/licensee/trespasser distinction under OCGA §§ 51-3-1 through 51-3-3, but Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) significantly narrowed the assumption-of-risk defense — the plaintiff's "equal knowledge" of the hazard must be actual, not merely theoretical, to defeat the invitee's reasonable care claim.
Georgia premises liability law preserves the traditional three-tier status framework that most states have partially or fully abandoned. Invitees — business visitors and members of the public invited onto the premises — are owed a duty of ordinary care to inspect and keep the premises safe (OCGA § 51-3-1). Licensees receive a narrower duty: the owner must not willfully or wantonly injure them and must warn of known hidden dangers, but has no inspection obligation (OCGA § 51-3-2). Trespassers receive only the duty not to willfully or wantonly injure (OCGA § 51-3-3). Status determination is the threshold issue in every Georgia premises liability case. Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) was the Georgia Supreme Court's landmark ruling limiting the assumption-of-risk defense in grocery-store and commercial-premise slip-and-fall cases: the defense requires that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific hazard, not just awareness that wet floors generally exist. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) established the constructive-knowledge and reasonable-inspection standard — constructive knowledge means the hazard existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. Atlanta commercial properties, Midtown retail corridors, Buckhead hotels, and Hartsfield-Jackson Airport generate the highest volume of Georgia premises liability claims.
Georgia's two-year personal injury statute of limitations under OCGA § 9-3-33 runs from the date of the injury. In premises liability cases, the evidence that determines whether the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard — the specific requirement in Georgia invitee claims under Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) — is exclusively in the landowner's possession: maintenance logs, inspection records, prior incident reports, cleaning schedules, and surveillance video. That surveillance video is typically overwritten in 24 to 72 hours on commercial properties. An attorney who issues a preservation demand within the first 24 hours of engagement locks that footage. An attorney who waits even a week will find the recording overwritten and the maintenance staff's recollection of their inspection schedule formed by time and hindsight.
The first legal task in a Georgia slip-and-fall case is establishing invitee status. Unlike Massachusetts (which abolished the distinction) or Montana (which abolished it for all entrants including trespassers), Georgia strictly enforces the three tiers. A business visitor — a customer, a patient, a hotel guest — is a business invitee owed the full duty of ordinary care under OCGA § 51-3-1. A person entering for a purely personal reason without invitation — a friend of an employee, someone using an unlocked back entrance — may be classified as a licensee, reducing the owner's duty to known-hazard warnings only. Establishing the specific nature and purpose of the entry is critical, and witness statements documenting the reason for the visit should be collected before defense investigators conduct their own witness interviews.
Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) changed the assumption-of-risk analysis in Georgia commercial premises cases. Before Robinson, Georgia courts had broadly applied a "voluntary assumption of obvious risk" defense that effectively barred claims where the plaintiff "should have known" of the hazard. The Georgia Supreme Court in Robinson required that the defense show the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific hazard that caused the fall — not just general awareness that wet floors, uneven surfaces, or dim corridors exist. This distinction is particularly important in grocery store and retail premises claims: a plaintiff who walks through a store without knowing a particular section had a recently mopped floor does not assume the risk of that specific spill simply by entering the store. Medical documentation of the mechanism of injury, photographs of the hazard taken immediately after the fall, and witness statements about the hazard's location and visibility are the tools that hold the Robinson actual-knowledge standard in the plaintiff's favor.
Government premises liability in Georgia requires navigating two separate notice systems depending on which government entity owns the property. For municipal property — city sidewalks, county parks, public transit facilities, MARTA stations — written ante litem notice under OCGA § 36-33-5 must be given within six months of the injury. For state property — state office buildings, Georgia DOT highway rest areas, state university facilities — written notice under OCGA § 50-21-26 must be given within 12 months. Both notice requirements are jurisdictional: missing the deadline is not a procedural default that can be waived — it eliminates the claim against that government defendant entirely. An attorney identifies the property owner within the first days after the injury and files timely ante litem notice while securing the surveillance video and maintenance records that will establish the government defendant's prior knowledge of the hazard.
Legal Information Notice
The legal information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and every case is different. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your state to verify the current law and how it applies to your specific situation.
Business invitees — customers, patients, hotel guests, and members of the public invited onto the premises for business purposes — are owed a duty of ordinary care under OCGA § 51-3-1. This includes a duty to inspect the premises and keep them safe. Constructive knowledge of a hazard (the hazard existed long enough that reasonable inspection would have found it) satisfies the knowledge element under Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991). Licensees (social guests) receive only a duty to warn of known hidden dangers under OCGA § 51-3-2. Trespassers receive only the duty not to willfully or wantonly injure under OCGA § 51-3-3.
Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) significantly limited the assumption-of-risk defense in Georgia commercial premises cases. Before Robinson, the defense was broadly applied when plaintiffs "should have known" of a potential hazard. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the defense requires showing the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the specific hazard that caused the fall — not just general awareness that the category of hazard might exist. A customer who walks through a grocery store without knowing about a specific recent spill in one aisle does not assume the risk of that spill simply by entering the store.
Two years from the date of the injury under OCGA § 9-3-33. For government premises, ante litem notice must be given within six months (municipal — OCGA § 36-33-5) or 12 months (state — OCGA § 50-21-26) — both of which are jurisdictional and run within the two-year SOL. Surveillance footage from the commercial property must be preserved within 24 to 72 hours before it is overwritten. Contact an attorney within the first day of the injury when possible.
Georgia applies a strict 50% comparative fault bar under OCGA § 51-12-33. If the jury assigns 50% or more of the fault to the plaintiff — for example, by finding the plaintiff was not paying attention to the floor — recovery is barred entirely. At exactly 50%, recovery is zero. Below 50%, damages are reduced proportionally. Defense teams in Georgia premises cases build comparative-fault narratives around plaintiff distraction (phone use, rushing), inappropriate footwear, and awareness of the general hazard area. Robinson v. Kroger limits how broadly "awareness" can be construed, but the 50% bar still creates urgency around documenting the specific hazard conditions the plaintiff could not have known about.
Yes. Unlike Massachusetts (Mounsey v. Ellard, 1973), Montana (Richardson, 1997), and about 20 other states that have abolished the invitee/licensee distinction, Georgia continues to apply the traditional three-tier framework under OCGA §§ 51-3-1 through 51-3-3. Establishing invitee status is the threshold legal question in every Georgia premises liability case. Business visitors, customers, and members of the public invited onto commercial premises are business invitees. Social guests and those entering with implicit permission are licensees. Uninvited entrants are trespassers. The category determines the duty owed and the available defenses.
All legal information on this page is sourced from primary government statutes. Last verified 2026-04-07.
OCGA § 51-3-1
ordinary care to keep premises safe
OCGA § 51-3-2
no willful/wanton injury; warn of known hidden dangers
Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997)
limiting assumption-of-risk; knowledge-of-hazard standard
Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991)
constructive knowledge and reasonable inspection standard
OCGA § 51-3-3
willful/wanton injury only
In-depth articles relevant to your slip & fall lawyer case.
Slip and Fall Settlement Amounts: What Is Your Case Worth?
See average slip and fall settlement amounts by injury type. Learn what property owners owe you and how to maximize your premises liability claim.
How Long Does a Personal Injury Case Take? (2026 Timeline)
Understand the typical timeline of a personal injury case from filing to settlement. Learn what factors speed up or delay your claim.
Pain and Suffering Calculator: How Much Is Your Claim Worth?
Learn how pain and suffering is calculated in personal injury cases. Understand the multiplier and per diem methods with real examples.
Different type of accident? We connect victims with attorneys across all six practice areas.
Collected by partner attorneys for injured clients. California and Pennsylvania reviews prioritized.
“After my crash, I did not know whether to talk to the insurance company first or get treatment documented. The attorney explained the timeline and what evidence mattered.”
— California accident review, Los Angeles, CA
“I did not understand Pennsylvania limited tort or why the adjuster kept asking about my policy. Getting matched with someone local helped me know what questions to ask.”
— Pennsylvania accident review, Philadelphia, PA
Informational only. GetAccidentLawyerNow is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every case is unique.
Don't wait. The 2 years statute of limitations is ticking.
Call (267) 212-1034 Now*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.