Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 51-3-25 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 51 TORTS

Section 3. Liability of Owners and Occupiers of Land, 51-3-1 through 51-3-44.

ARTICLE 2 OWNERS OF PROPERTY USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES

51-3-25. Certain liability not limited.

Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:

  1. For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or
  2. On a date when the owner of land charges any individual who lawfully enters such land for recreational use and any individual is injured in connection with the recreational use for which the charge was made, provided that, in the case of land leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for the lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this Code section.

(Ga. L. 1965, p. 476, § 6; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1083, § 1/HB 904.)

The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, substituted "On a date when the owner of land charges any individual who lawfully enters such land for recreational use and any individual is injured in connection with the recreational use for which the charge was made, provided that," for "For injury suffered in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that," at the beginning of paragraph (2).

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2000, "thereof, any consideration" was substituted for "thereof any, consideration" in paragraph (2).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Willful acts construed.

- Under Ga. L. 1965, p. 476, § 6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 51-3-25), the injured party coming within the provisions of that statute would be obligated to show a willful and malicious failure to guard or warn, that is, a failure to use even slight care; whereas a licensee under former Code 1933, § 105-402 (see now O.C.G.A. § 51-3-2) may recover by showing a lack of ordinary care, which under the circumstances may amount to willful and wanton negligence. Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga. App. 623, 165 S.E.2d 198 (1968).

Under Ga. L. 1965, p. 476, § 6 (see now O.C.G.A. § 51-3-25), the owner's liability for willful and wanton acts are limited solely to the willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. Perhaps as to willful and malicious acts described in the statute, the duty is substantially similar to that owed to a licensee under former Code 1933, § 105-402 (see now O.C.G.A. § 51-3-2), but to that extent only, as the owner, under that section has a broader duty which may involve acts other than failure to guard against or warn against the dangers stated under the Georgia Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq. Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga. App. 623, 165 S.E.2d 198 (1968).

Although finding that official immunity shielded a county employee from liability for injuries suffered by a child when that child fell from a swing on county property that the employee previously inspected, and that sovereign immunity shielded the county, the trial court nonetheless erred in concluding that the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., waived these immunities as: (1) implied waivers of governmental immunity were not to be favored; (2) the employee was entitled to official or qualified immunity, which could not be waived; and (3) even assuming a partial waiver of sovereign and official immunity through enactment of the Act, no evidence was presented that the employee acted willfully and the defect complained about by the child's parent was apparent to those using the property. Norton v. Cobb, 284 Ga. App. 303, 643 S.E.2d 803 (2007), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 634 (Ga. 2007).

Willful failure to guard or warn would require actual knowledge of owner that its property is being used for recreational purposes; that a condition exists involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; that the condition is not apparent to those using the property; and that having this knowledge, the owner chooses not to guard or warn in disregard of the possible consequences. This test excludes either constructive knowledge or a duty to inspect. McGruder v. Georgia Power Co., 126 Ga. App. 562, 191 S.E.2d 305 (1972), rev'd on other grounds, 229 Ga. 811, 194 S.E.2d 440 (1972); Spivey v. City of Baxley, 210 Ga. App. 772, 437 S.E.2d 623 (1993).

Willful failure imports a conscious, knowing, voluntary, intentional failure, a purpose of willingness to make the omission, rather than a mere inadvertent, accidental, involuntary, inattentive, inert, or passive omission. McGruder v. Georgia Power Co., 126 Ga. App. 562, 191 S.E.2d 305 (1972), rev'd on other grounds, 229 Ga. 811, 194 S.E.2d 440 (1972).

Open and obvious danger.

- A lessee's failure to guard or warn against dangerous conditions at a recreation area is not willful if the danger is open and obvious. Georgia Marble Co. v. Warren, 183 Ga. App. 866, 360 S.E.2d 286 (1987); Edmondson v. Brooks County Bd. of Educ., 205 Ga. App. 662, 423 S.E.2d 413 (1992).

As a prerequisite to immunity under the Georgia Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., the owner cannot charge a fee for admission to the property. However, the fact that no fee is charged does not assure applicability of this Act. Cedeno v. Lockwood, Inc., 250 Ga. 799, 301 S.E.2d 265 (1983).

Admission fees charged by campers.

- After the plaintiff sued the United States over injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained when the plaintiff fell down stairs within a federally owned campground, the United States was insulated from liability under Georgia's Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20, because O.C.G.A. § 51-3-25's exception to non-liability for landowners that charged admission fees did not apply since the fees the United States charged campers were not admission fees, which were prohibited by federal law, but were assessed to defray the costs of providing utilities. Swafford v. United States, 839 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 2016).

Owner not liable to persons admitted free, although others were charged.

- Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-23 of the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., a city operating a stadium was shielded from liability for injuries sustained by a six-year-old child who fell from the bleachers because children under six were not charged a fee to enter the stadium, although adults and older children were charged. Mayor & Aldermen of Garden City v. Harris, 302 Ga. 853, 809 S.E.2d 806 (2018).

Liability when fee not charged.

- In order to recover under the Georgia Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., from the defendant-owner, which did not charge a fee, the plaintiffs must show a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. Georgia Marble Co. v. Warren, 183 Ga. App. 866, 360 S.E.2d 286 (1987).

Attractive nuisance theory was inapplicable when an injured child was not a trespasser but rather a person permitted on the property but to whom only a limited duty of care was owed. Edmondson v. Brooks County Bd. of Educ., 205 Ga. App. 662, 423 S.E.2d 413 (1992).

Fee for use of park.

- The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant since the trial court was authorized to conclude as a matter of law that the $4.00 fee charged to each vehicle to enter the park did not constitute a charge for the recreational use of the park land itself and the plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from the plaintiff's general recreational usage of the park premises, for which no fee was charged, rather than from the use of any of the facilities for which a fee was charged. Therefore, the provisions of the Georgia Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., operate to prevent plaintiff from recovering from defendant based on allegations of simple negligence. Quick v. Stone Mt. Mem. Ass'n, 204 Ga. App. 598, 420 S.E.2d 36, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 420 S.E.2d 36 (1992).

Tripping on debris on public land.

- Evidence did not show that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources violated the Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA), O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., because it willfully and maliciously failed to warn people of the danger posed by a debris pile that was located near a public restroom on state land, and the trial court's judgment finding that the RPA applied to an action which a spouse filed against the Department seeking damages for injuries sustained when the injured spouse tripped on the debris pile, and dismissing the action, was upheld. Lee v. Dep't of Natural Res. of Ga., 263 Ga. App. 491, 588 S.E.2d 260 (2003).

Injury to motorcycle driver.

- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a city on allegations of negligence asserted against it by an injured motorcycle driver as the Recreational Property Act (Act), O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., prevented the driver from recovering from the city based on allegations of simple negligence; moreover, the Act clearly applied because it was undisputed that the injuries occurred when the driver collided with the cable fence on the city's recreational property, and the city permitted the general public to use the park and open field where the accident occurred for recreational purposes without charge. Carroll v. City of Carrollton, 280 Ga. App. 172, 633 S.E.2d 591 (2006).

Injury from swing in park.

- A park user who fell from a swing did not show that a city had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-25 as there was no evidence that any city employee had read instructions about the swing, newspaper articles did not convey such knowledge, and replacing equipment in 1999 was not probative of actual knowledge in 2003. Collins v. City of Summerville, 284 Ga. App. 54, 643 S.E.2d 305 (2007).

When a city park user fell from a swing, there was evidence that the city had actual knowledge of the condition of the ground under the swing and the user presented no evidence that the grass and soil beneath the swing was one involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; moreover, the condition of the ground was readily apparent to any user of the swings. Collins v. City of Summerville, 284 Ga. App. 54, 643 S.E.2d 305 (2007).

Independent contractor's fall in hospital.

- A provider of janitorial services to a hospital as an independent contractor was not liable, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-22 and51-3-25, in a slip and fall case involving a hospital employee because the employee was unable to argue that the employee entered the hospital for recreational purposes and, even if the hospital could be deemed a recreational area, the hospital as business owner and occupier could not delegate its duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition. Perkins v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2007).

Drowning in state park.

- Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and a power company in a parent's wrongful death action after the parent's child drowned at a visit to a state park as the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., absolved the entities from any liability since there was no evidence that the drowning resulted from a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. Ray v. Ga. Dep't of Natural Res., 296 Ga. App. 700, 675 S.E.2d 585 (2009).

Whether park officials knew of dangerous condition and whether failure to warn occurred.

- In an action brought after a cyclist was seriously injured in a biking accident in a national park, the district court erred in finding that the United States was immune from liability under Georgia's Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., because park officials knew the park was being used for recreational purposes, a reasonable jury could conclude that park officials knew the condition existed involving unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm, genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether park officials knew that dangerous condition created by root heave in pavement was not apparent to visitors, and genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether willful failure to warn occurred. Shaw v. United States, F.3d (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2018)(Unpublished).

Cited in Stone Mt. Mem. Ass'n v. Herrington, 225 Ga. 746, 171 S.E.2d 521 (1969); Washington v. Trend Mills, Inc., 121 Ga. App. 659, 175 S.E.2d 111 (1970); Georgia Power Co. v. McGruder, 229 Ga. 811, 194 S.E.2d 440 (1972); Erickson v. Century Mgt. Co., 154 Ga. App. 508, 268 S.E.2d 779 (1980); North v. Toco Hills, Inc., 160 Ga. App. 116, 286 S.E.2d 346 (1981); Majeske v. Jekyll Island State Park Auth., 209 Ga. App. 118, 433 S.E.2d 304 (1993); Anderson v. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc., 273 Ga. 113, 537 S.E.2d 345 (2000); Cooley v. City of Carrollton, 249 Ga. App. 387, 547 S.E.2d 689 (2001); Anderson v. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc., 261 Ga. App. 895, 584 S.E.2d 16 (2003); Word of Faith Ministries, Inc. v. Hurt, 323 Ga. App. 296, 746 S.E.2d 777 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Preemption of state statute, law, ordinance, or policy with respect to employment- and education-related issues involving aliens, 88 A.L.R.6th 627.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 51-3-25

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Anderson v. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc., 537 S.E.2d 345 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 66 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 23, 2000 | 273 Ga. 113

...gence cases. 3. The trial court correctly held, based on the uncontroverted facts adduced by the parties, that appellees were entitled to summary judgment on appellants' claims that appellees acted willfully or maliciously within the meaning of OCGA § 51-3-25(1)....
Copy

Cedeno v. Lockwood, Inc., 301 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 38 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 5, 1983 | 250 Ga. 799

...to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes." As a prerequisite to immunity under the RPA, the owner cannot charge a fee for admission to the property. OCGA § 51-3-25 (Code Ann....
Copy

Mayor of Garden City v. Harris, 302 Ga. 853 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 29, 2018 | 809 S.E.2d 806

...low. The Harrises sued the City to recover for Riley’s injuries, and the City moved for summary judgment, relying on the immunity provided by the RPA. Specifically, OCGA § 51-3-23 states: Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose; (2)...
...ee 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. And, with respect to the exceptions specifically recognized in OCGA § 51-3-25, that Code section states in relevant part: Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists ... [f] or injury suffered in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof. . . . OCGA § 51-3-25 (2). The City argued that, because Riley was not one of the persons who was charged a fee to use the City’s property for recreational purposes, the City could not be held liable for Riley’s injuries as a matter of law....
...or statutory meaning is at an end.” Deal, supra, 294 Ga. at 173 (1) (a). Our interpretation of the plain meaning of OCGA § 51-3-23 is not diminished when the statute is considered in the context of the exceptions to the statute set forth in OCGA § 51-3-25. Again, pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-25 (2): “Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists ....
...pplied.) OCGA § 51-3-20. A landowner’s liability is limited to those injured persons who have paid to use the landowner’s property for recreational purposes, and there is nothing in the natural reading of the plain text of OCGA §§ 51-3-23 and 51-3-25 to suggest that the legislature intended instead to leave in place the potential liability of landowners to persons who have not paid to use an owner’s property for recreational purposes just because the landowner would be potentially liable to others who have paid to use the property for such purposes....
...urposes” while at the same time limiting the landowner’s potential legal liability to only the “person or persons” who the landowner *857“charges . . . [to] enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.” OCGA §§ 51-3-20 and 51-3-25. Because the injured party in this case was not charged a fee to use the City’s property for recreational purposes, the City was shielded from liability for that party’s injuries as a matter of law by the RPA....
Copy

Mercer Univ. v. Stofer, 830 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2019 | 306 Ga. 191

...for recreational activities. With certain exceptions, the Act gives immunity to those who, without charge, allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes. The Act provides: Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25,[4 ] an *173owner of land[5 ] 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 **195condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes. OCGA § 51-3-22. The Act also provides: Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose; (2)...
...It's not just the activity but it's the owner's purpose. See, e.g., Okla. Stat. tit. 76, § 10.1 (D) (2) (immunity does not apply if "[a]ny commercial or other activity for profit directly related to the use is conducted on any part of the land"). OCGA § 51-3-25 provides: Nothing in [the Act] limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists: (1) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or (2) On a date when the owner of la...
...ase of land leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for the lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this Code section. The plaintiffs do not argue that either exception contained in OCGA § 51-3-25 applies here....
Copy

The Mayor & Alderman of Garden City v. Harris, 302 Ga. 853 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 29, 2018

...The Harrises sued the City to recover for Riley’s injuries, and the City moved for summary judgment, relying on the immunity provided by the RPA. Specifically, OCGA § 51-3-23 states: Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are sa...
...hom 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. And, with respect to the exceptions specifically recognized in OCGA § 51-3-25, that Code section states in relevant part: Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists . . . [f]or injury suffered in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof. . . . OCGA § 51-3-25 (2). The City argued that, because Riley was not one of the persons who was charged a fee to use the City’s property for recreational purposes, the City could not be held liable for Riley’s injuries as a matter of law....
...search for statutory meaning is at an end.” Deal, supra, 294 Ga. at 173 (1) (a). Our interpretation of the plain meaning of OCGA § 51-3-23 is not diminished when the statute is considered in the context of the exceptions to the statute set forth in OCGA § 51-3-25. Again, pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-25 (2): “Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists . ....
...ed.) OCGA § 51-3-20. A landowner’s liability is limited to those injured persons who have paid to use the landowner’s property for recreational purposes, and there is nothing in the natural reading of the plain text of OCGA §§ 51-3-23 and 51-3-25 to suggest that the legislature intended instead to leave in place the potential liability of landowners to persons who have not paid to use an owner’s property for recreational purposes just because the landowner would be potentially li...
...the landowner’s potential legal liability to only the “person or persons” who the landowner 7 “charges . . . [to] enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.” OCGA §§ 51-3-20 and 51-3-25. Because the injured party in this case was not charged a fee to use the City’s property for recreational purposes, the City was shielded from liability for that party’s injuries as a matter of law by the RPA....
...the public for a recreational purpose without charge. Here, there is no question that the City’s football stadium was open to the public for a recreational purpose and that the City charged an admission fee to enter the premises. Applying OCGA § 51-3-25 (2) and Georgia’s well-established case law, I would conclude that the City is not exempted from liability under the RPA....
...instead a statutory standard for liability.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm § 51 cmt. q (Am. Law. Inst. 2012). 3 Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are sa...
...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. Id. This liability waiver is subject to a companion statute, OCGA § 51-3-25, which provides: Nothing in this article limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists: ... (2) For injury suffered in any case when the owner of land ch...
...meaning of this Code section. Id. The majority concludes, after ostensibly applying the “plain language” of the above-quoted provisions without citation to meaningful authority, that the liability waiver of OCGA § 51-3-23 applies (and, consequently, that OCGA § 51-3-25 does not) because Riley did not pay the admission fee....
...However, simply parsing the language of OCGA § 51-3-23 does not end the analysis. The plain language of that Code section — indeed the first sentence — states that the RPA’s general liability protection is expressly controlled by the provisions of OCGA § 51-3-25. See OCGA § 51-3-23 (“Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25 ....
...Hancock, 211 Ga. 429, 440 (86 SE2d 511) (1955), so as to avoid “a construction that makes some language mere surplusage,” Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189, 191 (587 SE2d 24) (2003). Turning to the relevant portion of OCGA § 51-3-25, the liability protections of the RPA do not apply “[f]or injury suffered in any case when the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof.” Id....
...113, 114 (1) (a) (537 SE2d 345) (2000) (“The RPA limits, with certain exceptions, the liability of an owner of land who has made property available without charge to the public for recreational purposes.”); Cedeno v. Lockwood, Inc., 250 Ga. 799 (301 SE2d 265) (1983) (interpreting OCGA § 51-3-25), disapproved on other grounds, Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games v....
...The majority concludes that this provision is 6 only satisfied where the injured party is “the person or persons” who have been charged to enter. This, however, is but one way to interpret this portion of OCGA § 51-3-25 (2)....
...Our precedent clearly answers this question. Almost 35 years ago, this Court held in Cedeno that, “[a]s a prerequisite to immunity under the RPA, the owner cannot charge a fee for admission to the property.” 250 Ga. at 801 (2) (citing OCGA § 51-3-25) (emphasis supplied). See also City of Tybee Island v....
...at 175. Consistent with these long-standing decisions, as well as a natural reading of the statute, I conclude that it is the fee associated with the use of the property that controls our analysis, not whether a specific individual was charged.3 Such a resolution of the ambiguity between OCGA §§ 51-3-23 and 51-3-25 (2) is consistent with the requirement that we narrowly construe the liability waiver, which abrogates the common law right of an invitee to sue a landowner. 3 Even in “business interest” cases, where the recreational p...
... Furthermore, this construction maintains the liability shield envisioned by the General Assembly in OCGA § 51-3-23, encouraging landowners to allow the public to use their lands free of charge, while also protecting the waiver exemption codified in OCGA § 51-3-25 (2)....
...to construe them together and seek to give full effect to both laws as representing all of the legislative intention.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Finally, my interpretation is bolstered by the General Assembly’s inclusion of the phrase “in any case” in OCGA 51-3-25 (2)....
...ission to enter its land for a recreational purpose. 10 Assn. v. Nash, 220 Ga. App. 116 (1) (469 SE2d 276) (1996) (baseball registration fee did not qualify as a charge under RPA). Pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-25 (2), and applying Georgia’s well-established case law, I would conclude that by generally charging a fee for admission, the City is excluded from the RPA’s liability protection, no matter that the individual injured was relieved from paying the admission fee because of her age....
...at 775 (concluding that “the RPA applies to spectators at athletic events, when no admission charge is imposed”). Consequently, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ determination that the City was exempted from the RPA’s protection pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-25 (2). I am authorized to state that Justice Benham joins me in this dissent. 11 Decided January 29, 2018. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 339 Ga....
Copy

Mercer Univ. v. Stofer, 306 Ga. 191 (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2019

...With certain exceptions, the Act gives immunity to those who, without charge, allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes. The Act provides: 8 Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25,[4] an owner of land[5] 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, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes. OCGA § 51-3-22. The Act also provides: Except as specifically recognized by or provided in Code Section 51-3-25, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person 4 OCGA § 51-3-25 provides: Nothing in [the Act] limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists: (1) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or...
...leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for the lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this Code section. The plaintiffs do not argue that either exception contained in OCGA § 51-3-25 applies here....