Stone Mountain Memorial Ass'n v. Herrington
| Decision Date | 06 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 25317,25318,s. 25317 |
| Parties | STONE MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION v. C. D. HERRINGTON. STONE MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION v. Alice J. HERRINGTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Henning, Chambers, Mabry & Crichton, Eugene P. Chambers, Jr., Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, Robert L. Pennington, Atlanta, for appellant.
Cullen M. Ward, Frank M. Eldridge, Atlanta, J. H. Highsmith, Baxley, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mr. and Mrs. Herrington filed separate complaints against Stone Mountain Memorial Association, seeking damages on account of personal injuries suffered by Mrs. Herrington when she fell while walking on Stone Mountain. The trial court sustained the defendant's motions for summary judgments, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which court reversed the judgments of the trial court. We granted certiorari solely to consider the applicability to the facts in these cases of the provisions of the Act approved March 31, 1965 (Ga.Laws 1965, pp. 476-478; Code Ann. §§ 105-403 through 105-409). Insofar as is material to this decision that Act provides that except as specifically provided therein an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition on such premises to persons entering for such purposes (Code Ann. § 105-405); that such owner, who either directly, or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use his property for recreational purposes does not thereby extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose, or confer upon the person using such premises the legal status of invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or assume any responsibility for, or incur any liability for injury to person or property caused by any act or omission of such owner (Code Ann. § 105-406). Specifically excepted from the operation of the Act are those cases involving wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition and those cases where such owner imposes a charge for the recreational use of his land. Code Ann. § 105-408. Recreational purpose under the Act means hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicing, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, winter sports and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic or scientific sights. A charge means the admission price or fee asked in return for the invitation or permission of the owner to go upon the land, and owner means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, an occupant or person in control of the premises in question. Code Ann. § 105-404.
1. The defendants in certiorari contend that the Act is not applicable to the facts in these cases, first because an admission charge is made for those persons permitted to use Stone Mountain Park for recreational purposes. Under the Act "Charge' means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.' Code Ann. § 105-404(d). With respect to this issue, the defendant filed its motions for a summary judgment in each case on August 23, 1968. On September 19, 1968, defendant's manager answered interrogatories which had previously been propounded by the plaintiff, Mrs. Herrington. The first interrogatory asked the following question: The answer to this question was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Harris, s. 44523
...Florida & W. Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 71 Ga. 427(3); Bassett v. Callaway, 72 Ga.App. 97, 33 S.E.2d 112. And see Stone Mtn. Memorial Ass'n v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746(3), 171 S.E.2d 521. As we understand the holding in Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga.App. 862, 162 S.E.2d 307, it was that Bolden and his e......
-
Conway v. Town of Wilton
...extended the immunity under their recreational land use statutes to public entities; see, e.g., Stone Mountain Memorial Assn. v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746, 171 S.E.2d 521 (1969); Page v. Louisville, 722 S.W.2d 60 (Ky.App.1986); Anderson v. Springfield, 406 Mass. 632, 549 N.E.2d 1127 (1990); M......
-
Scrapchansky v. Town of Plainfield
...with many state courts that have applied their recreational use acts to public owners. See, e.g., Stone Mountain Memorial Assn. v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746, 171 S.E.2d 521 (1969); Pratt v. State, 408 So.2d 336 (La.App.1981), cert. denied, 412 So.2d 1098 (La.1982); Watson v. Omaha, 209 Neb. 8......
-
Voris v. Molinaro
...3 (1985) (wife's contractual release of liability barred husband's loss of consortium claim), citing Stone Mountain Memorial Assn. v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746, 749, 171 S.E.2d 521 (1969) (when wife's bodily injury claim was barred by statute providing that landowners who allow use of land fo......
-
Governmental Liability for Recreational Uses of Public Land: Bronsen v. Dawes County, 273 Neb. 320, 722 N.w.2d 17 (2006)
...Model Act as the RLA and is similar in content). 127. Brooks, 489 S.E.2d at 651 n.8; see also Stone Mountain Mem'l Ass'n v. Herrington, 171 S.E.2d 521, 523 (Ga. 1969) (holding that governmental entities were owners under a recreational use statute very similar to Nebraska's RLA because ther......