The Georgia Supreme Court declared that a law shielding property owners from liability if they invite the public in free of charge means Garden City may not be sued on behalf of a girl injured at a municipal stadium because she paid no admission, even though her parents each paid $2 to see a football game.

Overturning the trial court and Georgia Court of Appeals in a 7-2 decision, the majority opinion authored by Justice Harold Melton said the plain language of the Recreational Property Act means a landowner is only liable to those who paid for entry.

There is nothing to suggest that the Legislature intended “to leave in place the potential liability of landowners to persons who have not paid to use an owner's property for recreational purposes just because the landowner would be potentially liable for others who have paid to use the property,” Melton wrote.

A dissent penned Justice Carol Hunstein and joined by Robert Benham said the majority turned established precedent on its head by basing liability on whether a particular individual paid to enter, instead of whether the general public was obliged to pay.

The ruling “effectively overturns well-settled law without explanation,” Hunstein wrote.

As detailed in appellate rulings, the case began in 2012 when Willie and Kristy Harris took their daughter Riley and two siblings to a youth football game at the Garden City Stadium. The fee was $2 per adult and $1 for students; children 6 and under got in free. Riley and he sister were both 6, so admission was not charged for them.

The children left their upper-bleacher seats during the game to go to the concession stand. Riley slipped through the bleachers and fell nearly 30 feet to the ground, suffering serious injuries on her way back.

The Harrises sued Garden City in Chatham County, asserting claims for premises liability, negligence and negligence per se. The city moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that it was shielded by the RPA.

The 1965 act states that “an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition” except in cases where “the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go one the land for the recreational use thereof.”

Chatham County State Court Judge Hermann Coolidge Jr. denied the city's motion but granted immediate appellate review.

In November 2016, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld Coolidge. An opinion authored by Judge John Ellington with the concurrence of Judges Elizabeth Branch and Amanda Mercier said that “notwithstanding that the city chose not to charge very young children, including Riley, to enter the facility, the stadium was not open to the public without charge.”

In reversing the lower courts, Melton wrote that the act's language shielding “a landowner 'who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person'” onto the property “specifically and unambiguously” exempts a landlord from liability anyone admitted without charge.

In a footnote, Melton took issue with Hunstein's claim that the majority overruled prior decisions. In the cases cited in the dissent, “not a single one … involves a scenario where some members of the public were charged to use a landowner's property for recreational purposes but others were not,” Melton wrote.

“[T]o adopt the position of the dissent would require us to rewrite the RPA to insert additional language about how many members of the 'general public' must be charged a fee before a landowner would no longer enjoy immunity from liability with respect to someone injured on the property who used the land for recreational purposes but was not charged a fee,” he said.

Garden City is represented by Patrick O'Connor, James Gerard and David Mullins of Oliver Maner in Savannah.

O'Connor, who argued the case at the high court, said the majority opinion “took a straightforward approach to statutory construction and looked to the plain language of the RPA to decide the case. That's what we argued the court should do.”

The Harrises' attorney, Christopher Britt of Savannah's Karsman, McKenzie & Hart, did not respond to a request for comment.