O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-6-148 (2019)

Requirements for prescribed burning; limitation on liability

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prescribed burning conducted under the requirements of this part shall:

(1) Be accomplished only when an individual with previous prescribed burning experience or training is in charge of the burn and is present on site until the fire is adequately confined to reasonably prevent escape of the fire from the area intended to be burned;

(2) Be considered in the public interest and shall not create a public or private nuisance;

(3) Be considered a property right of the landowner; and

(4) Be conducted in accordance with a permit issued under Part 3 of this article.

(b) No property owner or owner’s agent conducting an authorized prescribed burn under this part shall be liable for damages or injury caused by fire or resulting smoke unless it is proven that there was gross negligence in starting, controlling, or completing the burn.

History

Code 1981, § 12-6-148, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2405, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1285, § 6.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Individual with burning experience in charge of prescribed burn. - Landowner was entitled to the protections from liability provided by the Georgia Prescribed Burning Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-6-148, because the landowner did not fail to ensure that an individual with previous prescribed burning experience or training was in charge of a prescribed

burn the landowner conducted on a tract of land for the purposes of O.C.G.A. § 12-6-148(a)(1); the landowner was assisted by the chief ranger with the local office of forestry service, and the ranger had extensive prescribed burning training and experience, evaluated the landowner’s circumstances and made the critical decisions about the timing, permitting,

CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.

and location of the burn and the methods to be used, and directed and supervised forestry employees and the landowner. Morgan v. Horton, 308 Ga. App. 192, 707 S.E.2d 144 (2011), cert. denied, No. S11C1028, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 533 (Ga. 2011). Landowner not required to obtain separate permit for days following prescribed burn. - Landowner’s failure to obtain a separate permit for the days following a prescribed burn pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 12-6-90 did not strip the landowner of the protections provided by the Georgia Prescribed Burning Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-6-148, because the chief ranger with the local office of the forestry service who assisted the landowner never told the landowner that the fire had to be completely out by 4:00 P.M. since the permit would expire, nor did the ranger tell the landowner that the landowner had to stop the burn or put the fire out due to the possibility of smoke combining with fog; although an expert witness stated in an affidavit that according to the State Forestry Commission Policy and Procedure Manual, no active flames were permitted outside of the permitted time, the manual upon which the expert relied for that conclusion was not a part of the record,

and thus, the expert’s assertion regarding the manual’s contents was inadmissible hearsay and without probative value. Morgan v. Horton, 308 Ga. App. 192, 707 S.E.2d 144 (2011), cert. denied, No. S11C1028, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 533 (Ga. 2011). Defendant shielded from liability in controlled burn. - After the plaintiff was injured when the truck the plaintiff was riding in struck a fallen power cable in the roadway, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant as the Prescribed Burning Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-6-145 et seq., shielded the defendant from liability because the defendant’s employees did not fail to ensure that the fire was adequately confined before leaving the area; and, even if the controlled burn was the source of the fire that burned the power pole, that did not establish that the defendant’s employees were grossly negligent as the employees exercised at least slight diligence in handling the controlled burn because the employees cut firebreaks; patrolled the area; doused hot spots; and returned later that evening and extinguished a nearby fire. Patton v. Cumberland Corp., 347 Ga. App. 501, 819 S.E.2d 898 (2018), cert. denied, No. S19C0341, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 428 (Ga. 2019).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2021 · leading case: Morgan v. Horton, 707 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morgan v. Horton, 707 S.E.2d 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 28× “Because we find that the undisputed evidence demonstrates as a matter of law that Morgan was entitled to the protections from liability provided by OCGA § 12-6-148, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand this case with direction to enter judgment in favor of Morgan.”

Wolfe v. Carter, 726 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “” Additionally, the tried court concluded that Wolfe had failed to establish any gross negligence as required under OCGA § 12-6-148 to impose liability upon Carter, noting that “[h]ere, there is no such evidence of negligence, gross or otherwise.”

Patton v. Cumberland Corp.., 819 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “The trial court granted summary judgment to Cumberland, finding that the Prescribed Burning Act, OCGA § 12-6-148, shielded Cumberland from liability because it had not acted with gross negligence.”

Georgia Forestry Comm'n v. Canady, 617 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 12-6-148 (b) (“No property owner or owner’s agent conducting an authorized prescribed burn under this part shall be liable for damages or injury caused by fire or resulting smoke unless it is proven that there was gross negligence in starting, controlling, or…”

Dep't of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. Shuler Ltd. P'ship, 139 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). · cites it 3× “See OCGA § 12-6-148. 13 It provides that a landowner who conducts a prescribed burn in compliance with the statute, cannot be held liable for damages or injuries caused by fire or smoke or for creating a nuisance unless it is proven that he was grossly negligent in starting,…”

Ronald Newton v. Travis Jacobs (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 18× “The trial court granted summary judgment to Argenbright and Jacobs, finding that Argenbright and Jacobs were entitled to the protections afforded by OCGA § 12-6-148 and that the record contained no evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Jacobs was grossly…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.