The legal environment for property owners is at an inflection point in the state of Georgia and in many parts of the country. We are seeing an increased frequency of severe events (known as nuclear verdicts) either through insurance carrier settlements or jury awards. This is leading to a dwindling supply of liability insurance while terms and conditions have deteriorated. Due to the imbalance of supply and demand for insurance, costs are skyrocketing. We have even seen some businesses close their doors as a direct result.
Senate Bill 68’s language around negligent security (which falls under premises liability law) seeks to create a standardized approach when these matters arise. Ambiguity around the current law (where there is no concrete standard) has not worked in a rational and fair manner for property owners.
In Senate Bill 68’s current form, it states that a property owner cannot be held liable for negligent security if:
The injured person was a trespasser on a property owners’ premises
The incident occurred off the property owners’ premises
The wrongful conduct of a 3rd party was a tenant or a guest of a tenant where the eviction process had started
The injured person was committing a crime on the premises
The premises is a single-family residence
Based upon a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a 3rd party, the owner made a reasonable effort to report to law enforcement. Calling 911 or marking a report shall be deemed a reasonable effort
It also states that:
Security contractors hired by property owners will be afforded the same rules as property owners plus their liability cannot exceed that of the owner’s
If a jury does not apportion reasonable fault to the 3rd party that committed the wrongful conduct, the judge is required to order a retrial of liability and damages
Property owners can be held liable for injuries caused by a 3rd party if the plaintiff proves:
The wrongful conduct by a 3rd party that caused the injury sustained by the invitee was reasonably foreseeable because the owner:
Had a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a 3rd party
Clear and convincing evidence of a 3rd party that was likely to engage in wrongful conduct based on:
Prior occurrences of similar wrongful conduct upon the premises which the owner was aware
Prior occurrences of similar wrongful conduct upon the property adjoining the premises or otherwise within 500 yards of the premises which the owner was aware
Prior history of similar wrongful conduct if the owner had knowledge that a 3rd party would be upon the premises
Wrongful conduct by a 3rd party was exploited by a specific physical condition on the premises which created increased foreseeable risk
The property owner failed to exercise ordinary care to resolve or mitigate such specific and known physical condition of the premises
Injury or damages ensued as a proximate cause due to the property owner not exercising ordinary care
If passed, these new legislative measures will take time to work through the market, but we believe it will create a fair and efficient system for all stakeholders in the medium and long term.
