Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

​In Georgia, premises liability law holds property owners and occupiers accountable for maintaining safe conditions for visitors. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, owners owe a duty of “ordinary care” to invitees—individuals lawfully on the property for mutual benefit, such as customers or contractors. This duty entails keeping the premises and its approaches safe. Licensees, like social guests, are owed a lesser duty, requiring owners to avoid willful or wanton harm. Trespassers, who enter without permission, are afforded minimal protection. To succeed in a premises liability claim, the injured party must demonstrate that the owner was negligent and that this negligence caused their injury. 

In 2025, Georgia enacted significant tort reform through Senate Bill 68, signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp on April 21. This legislation aims to limit premises liability lawsuits by tightening standards for property owner liability, particularly concerning third-party criminal acts. The law introduces new defenses for property owners and modifies how damages are assessed, applying retroactively to existing lawsuits and all future claims.

Legislative Changes: Senate Bill 68 and Tort Reform

Senate Bill 68, signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp in April 2025, introduces several significant changes to Georgia’s tort system aimed at reducing liability for property owners and businesses. The legislation limits property owners’ liability for third-party criminal acts, requiring plaintiffs to prove that the owner had specific knowledge of a security risk and failed to address it. Additionally, the bill introduces new legal defenses for property owners, including the ability to seek early dismissal of baseless claims before pretrial preparations. It also allows for separate trials to determine liability and damages, aiming to streamline the legal process and reduce costs.

Implications for Property Owners and Plaintiffs

For property owners, Senate Bill 68 provides enhanced protections against lawsuits, particularly concerning third-party criminal acts. The introduction of new legal defenses and the ability to seek early dismissal of claims can help reduce legal expenses and potential liabilities. However, these changes may also lead to increased challenges in proving negligence, as plaintiffs must now meet stricter standards to establish liability. The requirement for plaintiffs to demonstrate specific knowledge of security risks may make it more difficult for them to succeed in premises liability claims.

Broader Legal and Economic Impact

The enactment of Senate Bill 68 reflects a broader trend toward tort reform in Georgia, aiming to balance the interests of businesses and consumers. Supporters argue that the reforms will stabilize insurance rates and reduce frivolous lawsuits, benefiting the state’s economy. Opponents, however, contend that the changes may hinder access to justice for victims of negligence, particularly in cases involving third-party criminal acts. The ongoing debate highlights the challenge of finding a balance between protecting businesses and ensuring accountability for property owners

Judicial Interpretations: The Carmichael Decision

​The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael significantly altered the legal landscape of premises liability by expanding the standards for foreseeability in negligent security claims. Previously, Georgia courts required plaintiffs to demonstrate that prior similar incidents occurred on the property to establish foreseeability. However, in Carmichael, the Court adopted a broader “totality of the circumstances” approach, allowing courts to consider a wider range of factors, such as the property’s location, history of crime in the area, and the nature of the business, when determining whether a property owner had a duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts. This shift enables plaintiffs to present a more comprehensive case without the need for identical prior incidents.​

The adoption of the “totality of the circumstances” test has profound implications for negligent security claims in Georgia. Under this new framework, plaintiffs can argue that a property owner should have foreseen the risk of harm based on a combination of factors, even if no prior similar incidents occurred on the property. This approach aligns with broader trends in tort law that seek to hold property owners accountable for failing to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks. Consequently, property owners may face increased liability exposure, as courts are now more inclined to find that a duty to protect exists based on a holistic assessment of the circumstances.​

For property owners, the Carmichael decision complicates efforts to obtain summary judgment in premises liability cases. Previously, demonstrating the absence of prior similar incidents could be a strong defense against claims of negligent security. However, with the Court’s emphasis on a broader set of factors, property owners must now address a more complex array of considerations to successfully argue that they did not owe a duty to protect invitees. This shift necessitates a more thorough analysis of the property’s characteristics and surrounding environment, potentially increasing legal costs and the risk of liability.

Practical Considerations for Legal Practitioners

Georgia’s premises liability laws are changing with recent decisions and legislation. Plaintiffs now need to prove foreseeability without relying on prior similar incidents. The Carmichael decision established the “totality of the circumstances” test, allowing courts to consider various factors when determining a property owner’s duty. Property owners can mitigate risks by improving security measures and safety audits. Senate Bill 68 introduces new defenses for property owners, such as early dismissal of claims, making thorough documentation essential.

Evidentiary challenges have increased, particularly regarding the admissibility of prior incidents and crime statistics. Legal practitioners must present such evidence to align with the “totality of the circumstances” test without overstepping boundaries. Senate Bill 68 also imposes stricter standards, including bifurcated trials for assigning responsibility and determining damages. A Duluth accident attorney must navigate these changes to build strong cases and adhere to the updated legal framework.

Broader Implications and Ongoing Debates

​Georgia’s 2025 tort reform, particularly Senate Bill 68, has sparked significant debate over its economic and social implications. Proponents, including Governor Brian Kemp and business groups, argue that limiting lawsuits will reduce insurance premiums and make the state more business-friendly. However, critics, such as trial lawyers and consumer advocates, contend that there’s little evidence linking lawsuit limitations to lower insurance rates. They express concern that these reforms may hinder injured parties from obtaining fair compensation, especially in cases involving third-party criminal acts on business premises.

The reforms have led to a polarized landscape, with business groups supporting the changes and legal professionals raising alarms about potential injustices. While supporters claim that the legislation will curb frivolous lawsuits and benefit the economy, opponents fear it may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations seeking redress. As the legal community adapts to these changes, ongoing debates suggest that further legislative amendments or judicial clarifications may be necessary to balance economic interests with individual rights. ​

Conclusion

Georgia’s premises liability landscape has shifted significantly with the 2025 tort reform and the Carmichael decision. Senate Bill 68 introduces new defenses and limits liability for property owners, while courts now use a broader “totality of the circumstances” test. Legal professionals must adapt by reevaluating evidence strategies and foreseeability standards. Staying informed and proactive is key to successfully navigating these complex changes.