Legal Victory for Savannah in “Trip and Fall” Lawsuit
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals has marked a significant legal win for the City of Savannah. The court ruled that the city is protected from liability under the Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA) in a lawsuit brought by a tourist, Gloria McLamb, who was injured after tripping on a raised paver in the city’s historic district.
The case,Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. McLamb, was decided in August 2025. The appeals court overturned a lower court’s decision, which had denied the city’s motion for summary judgment. This meant that the city had sought to have the case dismissed, but the trial court had previously ruled against it.
McLamb was visiting Savannah in April 2019 when she and her family took a trolley tour of the city. Afterward, they chose to walk back to their hotel through the National Historic Landmark District. During this walk, she tripped on a raised paver and suffered injuries. She then filed a lawsuit against the City of Savannah.
The city argued that it was immune from liability under the RPA, a law designed to encourage landowners to open their property to the public for free recreational use by limiting the owners’ liability. The RPA specifically covers activities such as “viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites.”
However, the trial court had sided with McLamb, determining that there were questions of fact regarding whether the sidewalk qualified as recreational property. It also found that applying the RPA to a tourist but not a resident could potentially violate the state’s equal protection clause.
On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed. The court noted that the state’s Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of the RPA. It then applied a two-part test to determine if the city was entitled to immunity under the RPA, evaluating both the nature of the activity and the property involved.
The court’s decision highlighted McLamb’s own testimony. She had stated that she chose to walk back to her hotel because she “enjoyed sightseeing and wanted to see the parks, old buildings, and big trees.” The court found this to be clear evidence that her activity was recreational, as it aligns with the statute’s definition.
Regarding the property, the court pointed out that the sidewalk was located in a National Historic Landmark District and did not require any fee for use. While the city may benefit indirectly from nearby businesses, the court concluded that this was not sufficient to create a factual question about whether the property was recreational.
“The evidence in the record shows that both the nature of the activity McLamb was engaged in, and the nature of the property that she was on, were recreational,” the court stated in its judgment.
This ruling means the case will now be dismissed. It reinforces the broad protection provided by the RPA to Georgia landowners who make their property available for public recreational use without charge.
The outcome of this case underscores the importance of understanding the legal protections available to municipalities and landowners. It also highlights the complexities of determining what constitutes recreational activity under state law. For those interested in staying informed about similar legal developments, following local news sources can provide valuable insights into how these cases impact communities and public policy.
