We granted the application for interlocutory appeal of Cobb County and its employee, Arthur Trellis Norton, to determine whether the trial court correctly denied Cobb County and Norton’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of The Recreational Property Act1 or, alternatively, on the basis of sovereign and official immunity. The trial court, although finding that official immunity shielded Norton from liability for injuries suffered by Cobb when he fell from a swing previously inspected by Norton and that sovereign immunity shielded Cobb County, nonetheless concluded that the Recreational Property Act RPA waived these immunities.2 Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any essential element of a claim and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c; Britt v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc ., 258 Ga. App. 843 575 SE2d 732 2002. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp ., 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997.
So viewed, the evidence was that Cobb County operated parks and recreation facilities for the public, including Hurt Park, and there was a monthly inspection program in place. On July 16, 1999, Donna Nevils was with her godson in Hurt Park when Nevils noticed an “S” hook on a swing set which looked like it might come loose from the chain because the end of the hook was stretched out instead of closed on the ends. Nevils saw Norton, a Cobb County Parks and Recreation maintenance employee, and mentioned the problem with the “S” hook to him. Norton told Nevils that he would look at the hook. Norton did examine the swing set and noticed that the ends of the “S” hook were spread out to some degree. In his opinion, however, the ends were not so far apart that it would render the “S” hook defective, nor did he consider the hook dangerous or about to fail. Norton considered using bolt cutters, which also functions as large pliers, to press the ends of the hook closer together. Realizing, however, that there was a chance this would cause the hook to break, Norton did not use the bolt cutters for this purpose.
