322 Ga. App. 412
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jabari Gayle (age 17) was injured playing pick-up basketball at the Frank Callen Boys and Girls Club when his hand went through a wire-mesh glass office window behind a goal, causing serious wrist/tendon injury requiring surgery.
- The Club operates on property owned by the Housing Authority but is the sole occupant and controls the premises; Club activities include open recreational basketball and organized leagues.
- The Club maintained a voluntary $2 annual membership application/fee to track participants and defray costs; no one is turned away for nonpayment and spectators may enter free.
- Gayles sued the Club (and the Housing Authority) alleging negligence in premises maintenance and a willful/malicious failure to warn or guard against the hazard; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Club based on the Recreational Property Act (RPA).
- On appeal the Gayles limited their challenge to the premises-liability claim; the Court of Appeals reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed, holding the RPA barred the claims and the willful/malicious exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of RPA (immunity) | Gayle argued the Club was not entitled to RPA immunity because the facility was not a free public recreational area or the $2 fee made it a charged admission. | Club argued it controlled premises open to the public without a required admission fee; the $2 voluntary fee was not a "charge" under the RPA. | RPA applied: Club in control of premises that were open free to the public; voluntary $2 not an admission "charge," so immunity applies. |
| Wilful or malicious failure to warn/guard exception to RPA | Gayles contended the Club wilfully failed to guard or warn about the dangerous glass window. | Club argued there was no evidence of actual knowledge of a dangerous, non-apparent condition or intentional disregard; wire-mesh glass is common and the hazard was open and obvious. | Exception did not apply: no evidence of actual knowledge or that condition was not apparent; plaintiffs failed to show conscious, intentional omission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. City of Carrollton, 280 Ga. App. 172 (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Cooley v. City of Carrollton, 249 Ga. App. 387 (purpose of RPA to encourage public recreational use by limiting liability)
- Edmondson v. Brooks County Bd. of Ed., 205 Ga. App. 662 (RPA applies where property is open to public free of charge)
- Collins v. City of Summerville, 284 Ga. App. 54 (definition and proof required for wilful failure to warn)
- South Gwinnett Athletic Assn. v. Nash, 220 Ga. App. 116 (registration/operating fees not equivalent to admission charge under RPA)
- Spivey v. City of Baxley, 210 Ga. App. 772 (participation fees in leagues are not RPA "charges")
- Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games v. Hawthorne, 278 Ga. 116 (issue of RPA applicability is question of law)
- Zellers v. Theater of the Stars, 171 Ga. App. 406 (no breach where defendant lacked actual knowledge of prior incidents with broken glass)
- Imperial Investments Doraville v. Childers, 303 Ga. App. 490 (glass window not defective where no prior notice of problems)
- Hart v. Appling County School Bd., 266 Ga. App. 300 (distinguishes fenced, non-public school playgrounds from public recreational property)