Morgan v. Horton, 308 Ga. App. 192

Morgan, a Brantley County landowner, conducted a prescribed burn on his property near a highway on Dec. 4, 2001, with help from a trained forestry ranger.
The ranger supervised the burn, divided Morgan’s land, set plowed firebreaks, monitored weather, and obtained a prescribed burn permit in Morgan’s name.
The burn was started properly, monitored all day, and by day’s end residual smoke was light and blowing away from the highway.
On Dec. 5 the fire smoldered; the ranger anticipated potential smoke toward the highway and sought warning signs from State Patrol, but none were erected.
On the night of Dec. 5, wind died and residual smoke hovered; on Dec. 6 dense fog and smoke reduced highway visibility, contributing to a fatal collision involving Horton.
Plaintiffs sued Morgan (and a tractor-trailer driver) for negligence and nuisance; Morgan sought summary judgment claiming protection under OCGA § 12-6-148.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 12-6-148 shields Morgan from liability	Morgan was not in compliance; failed on multiple subsections.	Morgan complied via permit, ranger supervision, and on-site presence per statute.	Yes; Morgan entitled to 12-6-148 protections as a matter of law.
Whether the ranger’s role satisfies 12-6-148(a)(1) on charge of burn	Morgan wasn’t in charge due to lack of prior burning experience.	Ranger in charge; Morgan followed ranger's instructions and relied on expertise.	Yes; ranger’s expertise satisfied the statute’s charge requirement.
Whether Morgan's lack of continuous on-site presence defeats protection	Ranger left site briefly; Morgan not continuously supervised.	Statute does not require continuous presence; fire remained adequately confined.	No; no continuous presence requirement violated.
Whether post-permit activities (Dec. 5–6) void the protection	New or extended burning without separate permit voids protection.	No basis to require a new permit for separate days given conduct remained within permit and no improper triggering.	No; protection remains.
Whether Morgan’s conduct constitutes gross negligence under 12-6-148(b)	Expert opinions show lack of diligence and public safety concerns.	Evidence shows reasonable care; expert opinions are conclusory and displaced by ranger-directed decisions.	No; no evidence of gross negligence; court grants summary judgment for Morgan.

White v. Ga. Power Co., 265 Ga.App. 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (summary judgment standard; view evidence in nonmovant light)
Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 274 Ga.App. 704 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (gross negligence defined; jury as finder of fact)
Heard v. City of Villa Rica, 306 Ga.App. 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (gross negligence questions may be decided by court or jury depending on certainty)
Butler v. McCleskey, 208 Ga.App. 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (negligence per se in failing to obtain permit evidence; distinguishable facts)