Duty to licensees in Georgia premises liability cases

Under § 51-3-2(b), a Georgia premises owner “is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury”. Those words aren’t the whole story. Decisions treat some failures of ordinary care as wanton once the owner knows or should expect the person is there. An owner with no knowledge of a static condition, though, has a strong answer.

Who the duty covers

A licensee is a person who is “neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser”, has no contractual relation with the owner, and is permitted to be there “merely for his own interests, convenience, or gratification”. A social guest of the owner is the standard example. Classification covers the disputed cases. Note that Cham v. ECI Management, 311 Ga. 170 (2021), says that a tenant’s social guest isn’t automatically the landlord’s licensee.

What wanton means here

Three older statements still set the terms.

Decision	Language
Patterson v. Thomas (1968), quoting Atlantic Coast Line	An owner owes a licensee "no duty as to the condition of the premises . . . save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wilfully cause him harm"
Flagler Co. v. Savage (1988), quoting Barry v. Cantrell	"[I]t is usually wilful or wanton not to exercise ordinary care to prevent injuring a person who is actually known to be, or reasonably is expected to be, within the range of a dangerous act being done"
Wade v. Mitchell (1992), quoting Cook v. Southern Railway	"After the presence of the licensee is known, exactly the same acts of caution may be required of the owner to satisfy the legal duty as would be necessary if the licensee were invited"

Together they give a working test. The owner has no inspection duty for the licensee’s benefit. But it can’t let a person it knows of or should expect walk into a hidden danger it knows about, and it must take care when conducting dangerous activity around that person.

Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga. App. 326 (1968), also used the Restatement’s test: the owner knows or has reason to know of the condition, should realize the unreasonable risk, should expect the licensee won’t discover it, and fails to make it safe or warn, while the licensee doesn’t know of it.

Active conduct versus a static condition

This distinction can decide the case, and Wade v. Mitchell, 206 Ga. App. 265 (1992), spells it out.

Type	Example	Result
Active	A mechanic inflating a truck tire that explodes near a man he has been talking to	Summary judgment reversed
Static hidden, owner knew	A throw rug on a heavily waxed floor, in Patterson	Denial of summary judgment affirmed
Static, owner didn't know	Leaves on a home's steps, in Suddarth, even for an assumed invitee	Owner won
Knowledge unproved	A board over wires at a mall event, in Cooper	Defense won

In Wade, the man stopped at a truck stop only to ask for directions to a parts store. The court assumed he was a licensee. It said a truck service stop can be charged with anticipating that people will stop by for directions, and pre-existing defect cases weren’t controlling.

Patterson shows how a static hazard can still reach a jury. The guest swore that the owner said they had forgotten to tell her the floors were freshly and heavily waxed, and she testified that the rug had no rubber backing. That raised questions about knowledge, and about a risk she might not recognize.

Known presence doesn’t replace proof of the hazard

In Cooper v. Corporate Property Investors, 220 Ga. App. 889 (1996), the defendants said a woman at a crowded mall event was a licensee. The court called that “a distinction without a difference in this case”, since they plainly knew people were in the area, and “the defendants owed her the same duty as they would have owed if she were an invitee”. Read the rest. “The test for liability here is the proprietor’s superior knowledge of the hazard”, and the plaintiff had no evidence of it. All three defendants won. So known presence doesn’t replace proof about the hazard itself.

After-hours visitors and absent owners

In Flagler Co. v. Savage, 258 Ga. 335 (1988), a man returned to a closed restaurant’s lot around 3:00 a.m. to get his car, stepped into the woods, and fell over a concealed drop. The court said there was evidence from which a jury could find licensee status. It then turned to the owner, who had given up possession under a long lease, and upheld a jury question on § 44-7-14. That statute has its own test on defective construction and failure to repair, so a landlord’s liability doesn’t simply follow the licensee rule. The contractor won on separate grounds.

Guests in homes

A homeowner case may involve a friend or relative. These are the questions to work through.

1. Did the owner actually know of this hazard, or have reason to? General carelessness isn’t enough.
2. Was it hidden from the guest? A condition the guest knew about won’t support a claim, under the Restatement’s third point.
3. Did the owner do something active around the guest?
4. Was there a warning, and was it enough?
5. Did the guest provide a service, which could change the status?

Suddarth v. Lounsbrough, 369 Ga. App. 158 (2023), also noted a decision where a homeowner’s lighting created no liability to a departing social guest who had equal knowledge. For the rule on light, see inadequate lighting.

Homeowner’s insurance may respond to such a claim, and its terms and any notice requirement should be read before anything is assumed. A relative’s policy can raise exclusions, so ask about those too.

Crime against a licensee

The negligent security article has a tighter rule. Under § 51-3-52, added by SB 68 in 2025, a licensee must prove a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct, a known specific physical condition, and that the owner “willfully and wantonly failed to exercise any care”. Under § 51-3-54(6), no negligent security liability arises from an injury on premises “used as a single-family residence”.

Evidence for a licensee claim

Point	Proof
Owner's actual knowledge	Texts, repair requests, earlier complaints, statements after the fall
Hidden nature	Photos from the guest's approach, lighting at that hour
Owner's expectation of the guest	Invitation, repeated visits
Active conduct	What the owner was doing, and when
No warning	Testimony, messages sent beforehand

A sympathetic relationship can make this awkward. Early written notes about what each person knew may matter later, so keep them accurate. Fault is divided under § 51-12-33, and § 9-3-33 sets a two-year limit on the injury claim.

For what’s owed to someone who has no permission at all, see the duty to trespassers.

Sources

• Cham v. ECI Management, 311 Ga. 170
• Patterson v. Thomas, 118 Ga. App. 326
• Flagler Co. v. Savage, 258 Ga. 335
• Wade v. Mitchell, 206 Ga. App. 265
• Cooper v. Corporate Property Investors, 220 Ga. App. 889
• Suddarth v. Lounsbrough, 369 Ga. App. 158
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 44-7-14, 51-3-2, 51-12-33
• Georgia Senate Bill 68 (2025): §§ 51-3-52, 51-3-54

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.