306 Ga. 191
Ga.2019Background
- Mercer University hosted a series of free outdoor concerts at Washington Park (owned by Macon-Bibb) in July 2014; Mercer had a permit and planned, promoted, and hosted the events through its College Hill Alliance.
- Sally Stofer attended one such free concert and was fatally injured after falling; she did not purchase food or drink sold by vendors at the event.
- Stofer’s estate and family sued Mercer for negligence; Mercer moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under Georgia’s Recreational Property Act (OCGA § 51-3-22 to -25).
- Plaintiffs conceded the concert was a recreational activity but argued Mercer’s invitation was commercial because Mercer gained (or hoped to gain) branding, student recruitment, sponsorship, and potential revenue benefits.
- The trial court denied summary judgment on immunity; the Court of Appeals affirmed, citing evidence of Mercer's commercial motives and sponsorships; Mercer petitioned for certiorari.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, clarified the correct legal standard for immunity under the Act, and remanded for reconsideration under that standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes" under OCGA § 51-3-23 | Mercer’s invitation was commercial (not purely recreational) because the university benefited (branding, recruitment, sponsorships), so no immunity | Invitation for a free concert is recreational; immunity applies unless the property or activity is predominantly commercial | Court: Determine the nature/scope of the landowner's invitation based on (1) the nature of the activity invited and (2) the nature of the property; subjective motivation is generally irrelevant |
| Relevance of landowner’s subjective motive or speculative indirect financial benefits | Plaintiffs: Owner’s purpose (commercial motive) is material; subjective intent and indirect benefits defeat immunity | Mercer: Subjective motive and speculative indirect benefits should not defeat immunity when the activity is recreational | Held: Subjective motives and speculative/indirect benefits are generally improper considerations; focus on objective nature of activity and property |
| Whether evidence of sponsorships or potential future revenue defeats immunity | Sponsorships/ grant statements show commercial purpose, creating a jury question | Such evidence may be irrelevant if it does not bear on the nature of the activity or property at the time; indirect speculative benefits insufficient | Held: Sponsorships/advertising may be relevant only to the extent they show the property or invitation was primarily commercial; indirect speculative economic benefits alone are inadequate |
| Whether immunity questions are for judge or jury | Plaintiffs: factual disputes (commercial vs recreational) require jury finding | Mercer: courts can decide as matter of law when evidence is undisputed | Held: Determination is legal (the test) but where material facts about activity/property conflict, the factfinder (jury) must resolve them; summary judgment may be appropriate when no genuine dispute exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, 273 Ga. 113 (2000) (announced balancing test examining social and economic aspects of the activity)
- Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, Inc. v. Hawthorne, 278 Ga. 116 (2004) (required jury resolution where nature of park as recreational vs. commercial was disputed; some language about indirect benefits disapproved)
- City of Tybee Island v. Godinho, 270 Ga. 567 (1999) (sidewalk adjacent to beach was primarily recreational; indirect economic benefits insufficient to deny immunity)
- Cedeno v. Lockwood, Inc., 250 Ga. 799 (1983) (Underground Atlanta was commercial; predominant property use defeats immunity even if visitors engaged in recreational activity)
- Bourn v. Herring, 225 Ga. 67 (1969) (picnic and lake area qualified as recreational despite promotional/advertising allegations)