Governor Brian Kemp’s signing of Senate Bill 68 will introduce a new statutory framework for negligent security cases in Georgia. These cases arise when individuals suffer injuries or death on a property due to the landowner’s or occupier’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect against criminal acts by third parties. Previously, such claims followed the general premises liability provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) § 51-3-1, which also covers other premises liability cases, such as trip-and-fall or slip-and-fall claims. The newly enacted statutes significantly narrow the circumstances under which a negligent security claim can succeed and impose stricter standards for establishing liability.

When do the new laws go into effect?

Section 9 of SB 68 specifies the effective dates of the new laws. For negligent security cases, the law applies “only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of this Act,” which is expected to be within the next two weeks. A “cause of action” refers to the date of the injury or wrongful act. As a result, incidents of injury or death resulting from negligent security that occurred before this date will be governed by the previous law, while cases arising on or after that date will be subject to the new legal framework outlined below. This applies regardless of when a lawsuit is filed.

A note about visitor status in premises liability cases

As with other premises liability laws, a landowner’s or occupier’s duty—and potential liability—depends on the visitor’s status. The general classifications, which have been refined through various court interpretations, are as follows:

• Invitee: Generally, an invitee is someone who enters the premises for a business purpose or for the mutual benefit of both the visitor and the owner or occupier. This category excludes social guests.

• Licensee: A licensee is someone who enters the premises with the owner’s or occupier’s permission but not for a business purpose. Social guests, such as visitors attending a private party, or houseguests, are typically considered licensees.

• Trespasser: A trespasser is someone who enters the premises without the owner’s or occupier’s permission.

These classifications serve as general guidelines, but determining a visitor’s status often involves factual questions that may require resolution by the court.

Statutory summary

The new statutes governing negligent security claims are found in Section 6 of SB 68 (read text here) and include seven new code sections, O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, which are codified in a newly created Article 5 of Title 51, Chapter 3. In addition to these specific provisions, other sections of SB 68 impact civil and tort cases more broadly, including negligent security and other premises liability claims, and are discussed in a previous article (read here). The new statutes specific to negligent security are summarized below:

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-50: Defines the terms and concepts used throughout Article 5, which includes this section and all subsequent sections through O.C.G.A. § 51-3-57.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51: Establishes the general duties owed by landowners or occupiers to invitees in negligent security cases.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-52: Sets forth the general duties owed by landowners or occupiers to licensees in negligent security cases.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-53: Declares that the new statutes provide the exclusive remedy for negligent security claims. However, claims brought under O.C.G.A. § 51-1-56, which governs human trafficking, are exempt from these new rules, but only if the claims specifically relate to sex trafficking under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-46.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-54: Enumerates circumstances when there is no liability for negligent security. These include claims made by trespassers; claims arising at a single-family residence; and claims made by a person who was engaged in a felony or misdemeanor crime at the time, among others. 

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-55: Identifies factors that courts may consider in determining whether the landowner or occupier fulfilled their duties to visitors.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56: Makes clear that the apportionment rules of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 apply to negligent security cases. It further requires apportionment to certain classes of persons, specifically including the third person whose conduct caused the harm. Under this statute, there is a rebuttable presumption that a jury’s apportionment is unreasonable if the jury does not apportion enough fault to the criminal third party. The specific amount can differ depending on the facts.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-57: Extends the applicability of these rules to security contractors, including security guards and security companies.

Check back soon for additional analysis of the negligent security provisions of SB68.