Inadequate lighting premises liability in Georgia

Poor lighting alone doesn’t make a Georgia premises claim, because an owner owes no general duty to light a place. Suddarth v. Lounsbrough, 369 Ga. App. 158 (2023), says an owner has no obligation, even to an invitee, “to illuminate passageways, porches or steps, absent a contractual or statutory duty to do so”. Liability can follow only in a narrower setting: “if the lack of lighting prevents the injured party from discovering a dangerous condition of which the owner but not the injured party should be aware”.

The rule has three routes

Route	What must be shown	Example
Hidden hazard	A real hazard the owner should have known about, and darkness kept the plaintiff from seeing it	Bumpers in a dark lot
Combination	The condition and the darkness together were negligent	Irregular steps and no light
Contract or statute	A lease, service contract, code, or statute required lighting	A code provision that applies to that stair

So start with the object or condition, not the light. In Suddarth, a mail carrier fell in the dark on a home’s front steps covered in leaves. The porch light was off. The owners won because they had no knowledge of those leaves. The opinion said the plaintiff hadn’t claimed the steps themselves were a dangerous condition she couldn’t discover because of poor lighting. Without owner knowledge, the alleged lack of light “creates no grounds for liability”.

When the combination works

The Suddarth court contrasted Hatcher v. City of Albany, 147 Ga. App. 843 (1978): “Whether the combination of maintaining irregular steps and failing to provide lighting to illuminate the steps constituted negligence was a matter which the trial court should have submitted to the jury.” Brixmor New Chastain Corners v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235 (2023), is a modern example. A woman tripped on light-colored concrete bumpers one dark evening, and the court separated an older case where no “lighting or other issues” made the hazard hard to see. “There is such evidence here”, it said, and the owner’s summary judgment request failed. The full facts are on parking lot falls.

Fact to develop	Why it matters
The hazard itself	Darkness needs something to hide
Owner's knowledge of it	The rule requires the owner should be aware
Plaintiff's lack of knowledge	The owner "but not the injured party"
How the light affected sight	Link between dark and the fall
Any change the owner made	Repainting or new fixtures may be relevant

Stairway falls adds the question of building codes.

Finding a duty in a contract or statute

A shopping center lease, a management agreement, or a service contract might assign lighting. A building or fire code might require it for a stair or an exit. Don’t assume any particular code applied, since that depends on when the place was built and how it is used. Even proof of a violation isn’t the end. “Negligence per se does not equal liability per se”, said American Multi-Cinema v. Gillis, A24A0537 (2024), about a missing handrail that was open and visible.

A published engineering standard or an expert’s light reading doesn’t create a duty under Suddarth’s wording unless a contract or statute adopts it. It can still support the separate point that a person couldn’t have seen the hazard. An expert should explain what the levels mean in that setting.

Burned-out fixtures

A failed light raises a knowledge question about the fixture too. In Suddarth, the parties disagreed about whether the porch light worked, and video showed that holiday lights lit parts of the yard. The dispute didn’t change the outcome, because the owners had no knowledge of the leaves.

Useful records:

• Work orders and bulb replacement dates
• Complaints from customers, tenants, or staff
• Timers and control settings
• Contractor invoices
• Photographs of the fixture and of the same spot at the same hour

Replacement after the fall can raise § 24-4-407 on subsequent measures, and the rule’s limits are something to ask counsel about. Photograph the condition first, and send a preservation request.

The plaintiff walked into the dark

Darkness can cut against the person who chose to go ahead. In The Landings Association v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397 (2012), an 83-year-old walked at night near a lagoon, knowing alligators were in the area, and was killed. By a 4-3 vote the Supreme Court held that the claim failed on her equal knowledge and her own care. That was an unusual hazard, but the night walk was part of the reasoning.

On the other side, Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (1997), says an invitee doesn’t have to “look continuously at the floor for defects”, and may assume the owner has used reasonable care. A court will ask what a careful person would do “in a like situation”. Expect questions on these:

• Was a phone light available?
• Was there a better-lit route?
• Had you been there before in the dark?
• How much of the problem could you see?

Each one goes to fault, which § 51-12-33 divides. At 50 percent or more, recovery ends.

Lighting and crime

An attack in a dark lot is a different claim. Under SB 68 (2025), § 51-3-53 makes the negligent security article the sole remedy, with some exceptions. An invitee must prove, among other things, that a third person exploited “a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner or occupier” and that the risk was substantially greater than the general risk nearby, under § 51-3-51(3). Whether darkness qualifies in a given case is an argument for the facts. The statute doesn’t name lighting. Earlier law had its own limits too: “A landowner does not become an insurer of safety by taking some security precautions”, said Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991), about a lit restaurant lot.

By place

Place	Added question
Parking lot	Who controls the fixtures, and what the darkness hid
Apartment stairs and halls	§ 51-3-1 for common areas, § 44-7-13 repair duty for the tenant
Restaurant or bar	Whether dimness hid a step or hazard
Private home	A guest may be a licensee, with a narrower duty

For a residential lease entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2024, House Bill 404 also put an implied warranty of habitability into § 44-7-13, according to the Legislative Counsel’s summary. So check the lease date.

See restaurant falls and the duty to licensees. Suddarth cited a decision where a homeowner’s lighting didn’t create liability to a departing social guest who had equal knowledge. The deadline in § 9-3-33 is two years.

Sources

• Legislative Counsel, Summary of General Statutes Enacted, 2024: House Bill 404
• Suddarth v. Lounsbrough, 369 Ga. App. 158
• Brixmor New Chastain Corners v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235
• American Multi-Cinema v. Gillis, A24A0537
• The Landings Association v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397
• Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735
• Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 24-4-407, 44-7-13, 51-3-1, 51-12-33
• Georgia Senate Bill 68 (2025): §§ 51-3-51, 51-3-53

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.