# Laws about letting some one hunt on private land and lawsuits



## Thanatos (Feb 23, 2008)

I wanted to know if there is any laws in GA that state that if a private land owner gives some one permission to hunt on their land, are they protected from lawsuits if that individual  got injured???


----------



## Dead Eye Eddy (Feb 23, 2008)

I don't know the answer to that one.  I would hope that if I let someone on my land and they got hurt, then they wouldn't feel the need to sue me.  That's about as stupid as falling down someone's steps and then suing them because you're an idiot.


----------



## Snakeman (Feb 23, 2008)

27-3-1.  Requirement of permission to hunt on lands of another; written permission; enforcement; immunity of landowner from civil liability 


> (e) Any owner of land, lessee of land, or lessee of the game or fishing rights to land who gives permission to another person to hunt, fish, or take wildlife upon the land with or without charge shall be entitled to the same protection from civil liability provided by Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 51 for landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes without charge.



The Snakeman


----------



## Thanatos (Feb 23, 2008)

Exactly what I was looking for!


----------



## rayjay (Feb 24, 2008)

Notice the 'without charge' part of it.


----------



## Larry Rooks (Feb 24, 2008)

Be on the safe side.  Before you give permission, have an
attorney draw up a form stating that you are not held
liable for any accident or injury that may occur and have the hunter sign it BEFORE he ever hunts.  This will release you from liability.


----------



## Snakeman (Feb 25, 2008)

rayjay said:


> Notice the 'without charge' part of it.


Read it again, rayjay.  The "without charge" part refers to allowing the public access to private land for recreation, other than hunting, fishing, or taking wildlife.  The code specifically says "who gives permission to another person to hunt, fish, or take wildlife upon the land with or without charge shall be entitled to the same protection from civil liability"

The Snakeman


----------



## polaris30144 (Feb 25, 2008)

Some people selectively read, one word changes the whole meaning of a law or statement.


----------



## JBowers (Feb 28, 2008)

The following information is not intended as legal advice. Its purpose is to create an awareness of landowner liability. 

Legal liability has been identified as a major concern among landowners when considering whether or not to grant access to hunters to hunt their property.  Legal liability has also been offered as a reason some landowners have stopped allowing hunting access to their property.  This is an important issue of concern with the increasing need of sound deer management and hunting access.

In an effort to encourage landowners to make their lands available to the public for recreational purposes, including hunting and fishing, Georgia law (OCGA 51-3-20 through 51-3-26) explicitly shields landowners from civil liability for injuries to persons who use their land for recreational purposes without charge unless the landowner willfully or maliciously fails to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.  Landowners will not be liable unless they violate this standard of care.  

This law is known as the Georgia Recreation Property Act and its purpose is to encourage private landowners to make their lands available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting landowner liability.  The RPA does not grant _total immunity_ from liability to landowners who allow public recreation on their land. Rather, the RPA offers a _limitation_ on the duty of care owed by the landowner to recreational users subject to certain statutory conditions. Landowners will not be liable unless they violate this standard of care.  Georgia Courts have interpreted this standard of care as the “duty of slight care”, which is lower than that of ordinary care.

Basically, by granting permission the owner does not 1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose; 2) confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or 3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.  In a nutshell, the landowner is absolved from both constructive knowledge (one by exercise of reasonable care would have known the fact) and the duty to inspect.

Georgia law (OCGA 27-3-1) further extends this same protection to landowners, lessees of land, or lessees of hunting or fishing rights who give permission to another to hunt or fish on their property with or without charge.

According to a recent study conducted by Ron Kaiser and Dr. Brett A. Wright and published in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (2002), a total of 637 recreational landowner liability cases have reached the Appellate Courts, nationwide.  In their review of these cases, 307 involved public agencies and 330 involved private landowners.  Kaiser and Wright analyzed these cases by state and recreational activity.  They grouped recreational activities into 13 categories, including hunting.  According to this data, there were a total of 23 cases (5 against public agencies and 18 against private landowners) between 1965 and 2001 in Georgia.  Interestingly, there were no recreational injury cases involving hunting.  In more than 35 years, there have been no successful Appellate court cases for liability claims against landowners involving hunting activities in Georgia.  Accordingly, it appears that Georgia’s recreation liability statutes shielding landowners with respect to allowing hunting activities are among the strongest in the Nation.

The perception of landowner liability appears to be greater than actual liability risks.  Ultimately, there’s no such thing as being totally covered. Anyone can file a lawsuit. Even if the suit is without merit and the landowner wins, landowners still have the costs associated with defending themselves.


----------

