O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-3-52 (2019)

Limitation not available to owner or tenant

✓ 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

The limitation prescribed by this article shall not be asserted as a defense by any person who would otherwise be entitled to its benefits but who is in actual possession or control, as owner, tenant, or otherwise, of such an improvement at the time any deficiency of such an improvement constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or death for which it is proposed to bring an action.

History

Ga. L. 1968, p. 127, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Employing contractor had at least equal knowledge of specific hazard. - In a mesothelioma case, the grant of summary judgment to defendant hospital was upheld because plaintiff’s employing contractor had at least equal knowledge of the specific hazard posed by exposure to

asbestos at defendant hospital and full knowledge by the independent contractor of the dangers was sufficient to discharge the landowner’s duty to its invitees. Sinyard v. Ga. Power Co., 363 Ga. App. 195, 871 S.E.2d 45, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 138 (2022).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, §§ 108 et seq., 137 et seq. C.J.S. 53 C.J.S., Limitation of Actions, §§ 82 et seq., 105. ALR. Validity and construction, as to claim

alleging design defects, of statute imposing time limitations upon action against architect or engineer for injury or death arising out of defective or unsafe condition of improvement to real property, 93 A.L.R.3d 1242.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2022 · leading case: Kevin Sinyard v. Piedmont Hosp., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
Kevin Sinyard v. Piedmont Hosp., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-3-52; see also OCGA § 9-3-50 (1) (“person” includes corporations and partnerships).”
Georgia Power Co. v. Colen Campbel (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Nevertheless, there is an exception to this statutory protection that precludes the use of the defense “by any person who would otherwise be entitled to its benefits but who is in actual possession or control, as owner, tenant, or otherwise, of such an improvement at the time…”
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.