Invitee, Licensee, or Trespasser: How Does Your Status Affect a Georgia Premises Case?
On this page
It sets the duty the owner owed you. An invitee is owed “ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe” (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1). A licensee can recover “only for willful or wanton injury” (§ 51-3-2(b)). A trespasser is owed “no duty of care … except to refrain from causing a willful or wanton injury” (§ 51-3-3(b)). The same hazard can produce a strong claim for one visitor and no claim for another.
The three classes in the statutes
| Status | Definition | Duty owed | Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invitee | A person the owner, "by express or implied invitation, induces or leads … to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose" | Ordinary care to keep the premises and approaches safe | § 51-3-1 |
| Licensee | A person who "(1) Is neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser; (2) Does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner of the premises; and (3) Is permitted, expressly or impliedly, to go on the premises merely for his own interests, convenience, or gratification" | Liability "only for willful or wanton injury" | § 51-3-2 |
| Trespasser | Not defined in § 51-3-3; in ordinary terms, a person on the land without right or permission | "No duty of care … except to refrain from causing a willful or wanton injury" | § 51-3-3 |
The licensee definition is a three-part test in the statute itself: a person who fails any part is not a licensee. A customer is excluded by the first part; a person with a contract with the owner by the second.
Where the invitee-licensee line changes the result
The invitee standard requires reasonable inspection and care, and the slip-and-fall test built on it is described in what you must prove in a Georgia slip-and-fall case. The licensee standard requires much more from the injured person: proof of willful or wanton conduct. For example, imagine a guest at a friend’s backyard party who trips on a loose step the host had not noticed. Under § 51-3-2, that guest is a licensee permitted on the premises for their own enjoyment, and proof that the host simply failed to notice the step would not show willful or wanton conduct. The same step at a store, injuring a customer, would be judged under ordinary care.
Status disputes also arise at apartment complexes. In Cham v. ECI Management Corp. (2021), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a trial court properly instructed the jury on the licensee standard for a man killed in a complex’s parking lot while staying with a tenant, because the evidence supported that theory; see landlord liability for common-area injuries.
The trespasser statute and children
Section 51-3-3 defines “possessor of land” broadly, as “the landowner, occupant of the land, holder of any easement to the land, or lessee of the land”, and states the willful-or-wanton limit. Subsection (c) preserves the common-law attractive nuisance doctrine “in effect as of January 1, 2014”, so claims by children drawn onto property by a dangerous condition are governed by the case law as it stood then, not by the general trespasser rule.
Status also controls negligent security claims
For attacks by third persons on or after April 21, 2025, the negligent security statute ties the claim to status: invitees can rely on prior similar crimes to show foreseeability, licensees only on a particularized warning plus willful and wanton failure to act, and trespassers have no negligent security claim at all (§§ 51-3-51, 51-3-52, 51-3-54(1)). See property owner liability for an attack.
Recreational land is a separate rule
A landowner who opens land to the public for recreation without charge has a separate statutory limit on liability, regardless of these three classes; see Georgia’s Recreational Property Act.
Questions that fix a visitor’s status
- Why was the person on the property, and who benefited from the visit?
- Was there an invitation, express or implied, or only permission?
- Was there a contract with the owner (a ticket, a lease, a service agreement)?
- Did the person stay within the area the invitation or permission covered?
Sources
- O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-1, 51-3-2, 51-3-3, 51-3-51, 51-3-52, 51-3-54.
- Cham v. ECI Management Corp., 311 Ga. 170 (2021)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.