Johnson v. City of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 22 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 68047,68047
• Citation: 171 Ga.App. 296,319 S.E.2d 506
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CITY OF ATLANTA.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 506

319 S.E.2d 506

171 Ga.App. 296

JOHNSON v. CITY OF ATLANTA.

No. 68047.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 22, 1984.

James B. Drew, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.

Marva Jones Brooks, Marion K. Smith, Atlanta, for appellee.

CARLEY, Judge.

In 1980, the appellee-defendant municipality operated a summer camp program at the Grant Park Recreation Center. The then twelve-year-old appellant-plaintiff attended this summer camp. According to appellant's evidence, a $20 entry fee was initially charged and then $3 up to $4.50 was paid for each week that he attended the camp.

On the day in question, appellant was "tumbling" on mats which had been placed on a recently mopped floor at the park recreation center. According to appellant, after he had "flipped" on the mat, he "sat on ... water and ... slid into the wall." Appellant attributed the water on the floor of the recreation center to the recent mopping and attributed his resulting injuries to the negligence of appellee's employees in placing the tumbling mats on that surface.

Appellant instituted a civil action against appellee seeking damages for the injuries allegedly sustained as a result of appellee's negligence. Appellee answered, raising among its other defenses that of municipal immunity with regard to the summer camp it operated at Grant Park. Based upon this defense, appellee subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted appellee's motion, from which order appellant brings this appeal.

Appellant does not dispute the fact that Grant Park is maintained by appellee primarily for the use of the public. He does assert that the fact that a fee was charged for his attendance at the summer camp at the Grant Park Recreation Center renders the defense of municipal immunity nonviable.

" 'Where a city maintains a park primarily for the use of the public, intended as a place of resort for pleasure and promotion of health of the public at large, its operation is in virtue of the governmental powers of the municipality, and no municipal liability would attach to the non-performance or improper performance of the duties of the officers, agents, or servants of the city in respect to keeping the park safe for use by members of the general public. It would not affect the public character of the duties of the officers, agents, or servants of the city that a purely incidental profit might result to the city from its operation or management of the park. But if the city, having charter authority, maintains the park primarily as a source of revenue, the duty of maintaining it in a safe condition for the use for which it is intended would be ministerial, and municipal liability would attach for breach of such duty.' [Cit.] ... The test neatly bars the door to most municipal activity. Cities don't operate facilities primarily as a source of revenue, and the legislature does not ordinarily give this kind of charter authority." (Emphasis in original.) City...