311 Ga. 170
Ga.2021Background
- In Dec. 2015 Franklin Callens was fatally shot during an armed robbery in the common-area parking lot of an apartment complex owned and managed by Defendants.
- Callens was living with tenant Asia Jones; Jones testified she asked management whether Callens could live there and said he was present when she signed the lease.
- The lease and management policy required adult occupants to be listed on the rental application; Callens was not listed and did not sign the lease.
- At trial Defendants requested jury instructions on invitee, licensee, and trespasser; Plaintiffs objected to the licensee charge.
- The trial court gave the licensee instruction; the jury returned a defense verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the licensee charge; this Court granted certiorari on whether giving a licensee charge was error when the decedent was a guest of a lawful tenant.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia held there was at least "slight evidence" supporting a licensee classification, so the licensee charge was not erroneous and the judgment was affirmed as to that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing jury on duty owed to a licensee when decedent was a tenant's guest | Callens was either an invitee (if management permitted him to live there) or a trespasser (if not); no basis for licensee charge | Slight evidence showed Callens may have been a licensee (permitted to be on premises for his own interests without contractual relation) | No error: slight evidence supported a licensee charge under OCGA § 51-3-2; instruction permissible |
| Whether the "stands-in-the-shoes" rule (guest stands in tenant’s shoes) makes a tenant’s guest automatically an invitee of landlord | Plaintiffs: guest of tenant becomes invitee of landlord | Defendants: guest status relative to tenant does not automatically determine relationship to landlord; landlord’s benefit or interest controls | Majority: the stands-in-the-shoes principle (from landlord-tenant/out-of-possession contexts) does not apply to OCGA § 51-3-1 premises-liability inquiries; landlord–guest relation depends on landlord’s interest/benefit |
| Standard for giving jury instruction on visitor classification | Plaintiffs: no more than invitee or trespasser here | Defendants: slight evidence suffices to authorize an instruction | Court: slight evidence is enough to authorize a licensee instruction; jury decides weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Daly v. Berryhill, 308 Ga. 831 (slight evidence is sufficient to authorize a jury instruction)
- Anderson v. Cooper, 214 Ga. 164 (visitor is invitee if landowner receives some benefit or interest from visit)
- Lipham v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 263 Ga. 865 (owner’s duty varies by invitee/licensee/trespasser classification)
- Colquitt v. Rowland, 265 Ga. 905 (landlord who parts with possession has limited tort liability under landlord-tenant statute)
- Crossgrove v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 30 Ga. App. 462 (historical "stands-in-the-shoes" statement in landlord-tenant context)
- Brown v. Clay, 166 Ga. App. 694 (Court of Appeals reasoning conflating invitee/licensee analysis in landlord contexts criticized by majority)
- Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC, 307 Ga. 321 (distinguishing landlord retained-control premises from tenant-possessed premises in duty analysis)