City Georgia Wins "Trip and Fall" Case After Appeal Overturns Trial Ruling

City of Savannah Wins Appeal in Tourist's Lawsuit

In a recent decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City of Savannah in a "trip and fall" lawsuit brought by a tourist named Gloria McLamb. The case centered around an incident where McLamb was injured after tripping on a raised paver in the city’s historic district. The appeals court overturned a lower court’s decision, determining that the city is protected from liability under the Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA).

The ruling came in August 2025 in the case of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah v. McLamb. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment for the city, which had sought to dismiss the case altogether.

McLamb visited Savannah in April 2019 with her family. After taking a trolley tour, they decided to walk back to their hotel through the National Historic Landmark District. During the walk, she tripped on a raised paver and sustained injuries. She then filed a lawsuit against the City of Savannah, seeking compensation for her damages.

The city argued that it was immune from liability under the RPA, a law designed to encourage landowners to open their property to the public for free recreational use by limiting the owners’ liability. According to the statute, activities such as “viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites” are considered recreational.

However, the trial court had ruled in favor of McLamb. It determined that there were factual questions about whether the sidewalk qualified as recreational property. Additionally, the court found that applying the RPA to a tourist but not a resident could violate the state’s equal protection clause.

On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed. The appeals court noted that the state’s Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of the RPA. It then applied a two-part test to assess whether the city was entitled to immunity under the RPA, considering both the nature of the activity and the property involved.

The court’s decision highlighted McLamb’s own testimony. She had stated during a deposition that she chose to walk back to her hotel because she "enjoyed sightseeing and wanted to see the parks, old buildings, and big trees." The court viewed this as clear evidence that her activity was recreational, as it aligns with the statute’s definition.

Regarding the property, the court noted that the sidewalk was located in a National Historic Landmark District and did not require any fee for access. While the city may benefit indirectly from nearby businesses, the court determined that this was not sufficient to create a factual dispute about whether the property was recreational.

"The evidence in the record shows that both the nature of the activity McLamb was engaged in, and the nature of the property that she was on, were recreational," the court stated in its judgment.

With the reversal of the trial court’s decision, the case will now be dismissed. This ruling reinforces the broad protections offered by the RPA to Georgia landowners who make their property available for public recreational use without charge.

Key Takeaways from the Case

• Recreational Property Act (RPA): Designed to protect landowners from liability when allowing public access for free recreational purposes.
• Nature of Activity: The court emphasized that activities like sightseeing and exploring historical sites are clearly covered under the RPA.
• Nature of Property: The sidewalk in question was part of a National Historic Landmark District and was accessible without cost, further supporting the RPA’s applicability.
• Legal Precedent: The Georgia Supreme Court has previously affirmed the constitutionality of the RPA, providing a strong foundation for the appeals court’s decision.

This case serves as an important reminder of the legal protections available to municipalities and landowners who offer public access to historically significant areas. It also underscores the importance of understanding how laws like the RPA can impact liability in cases involving public spaces.