Georgia torts: who isn’t covered by the reasonable care standard

Think of premises liability in Georgia as a spectrum, not a single blanket of safety. The law starts with the idea that property owners owe a duty to keep visitors safe, but that duty isn’t one-size-fits-all. It flexes depending on who’s on the land and why they’re there. If you’re studying the Georgia torts landscape, you’ll notice the “reasonable care” standard sits at the center, but the level of care shifts with the relationship between the landowner and the person on the property.

What does “reasonable care” even mean here?

In a nutshell, the reasonable care standard asks whether a property owner acted like a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances to prevent harm. Think of a typical homeowner or business owner walking a property before a guest arrives: checking for obvious hazards, fixing a leaky stair, posting a caution sign if a ladder is out, and so on. The tricky part is: not everyone on the property triggers the same duty. The law recognizes that different people—neighbors, customers, guests, or random passersby—deserve different levels of protection. That nuance is what you’ll see echoed in exam-style hypotheticals and, more importantly, in real-life litigation.

Meet the usual cast on the premises

To get a handle on the modern approach, it helps to map out the familiar categories you’ll encounter:

• Invitees: These are the guests or customers with a purpose related to the property owner’s business or the area’s use. Think shoppers in a store, or a contractor working on-site. They’re owed a relatively high duty of care. The owner must take reasonable steps to keep hazards away and warn about dangers that aren’t obvious.

• Licensees: These folks are on the property for their own reasons, not for the landowner’s benefit. They get a moderate duty: the owner should warn or fix hazards the licensee wouldn’t ordinarily discover.

• Discovered trespassers: This is where the owner knows someone has entered the land without permission but hasn’t yet become a continuous, ongoing problem. The duty here is more than to a complete stranger, but less than for an invitee. The owner should avoid willful or wanton harm and, where feasible, fix known hazards.

• Children (under the attractive nuisance doctrine): The classic “why didn’t you see the kid” problem. Owners owe heightened care to children because kids may not recognize dangers the way adults do. The rule often requires protective measures or restrictions to keep children away from obvious hazards that could attract them.

• Flagrant trespassers: Here we’re leaving the usual script and looking at a modern trend in some jurisdictions, including discussions that crop up in Georgia-related tort conversations. Flagrant trespassers are those present on someone else’s property without permission and, more importantly, with malicious or blatantly wrongful intent. In this category, the duty of care shown by the landowner is notably narrow. The standard isn’t to protect against every hazard; the owner isn’t expected to maintain the same shield of safety as they would for an invited guest. The core idea: avoid intentionally harming a trespasser, but don’t be held to a higher bar for someone who is there uninvited and perhaps with ill intent.

Let me explain why the “flagrant trespasser” idea matters

Here’s the thing: modern trend analyses aren’t saying that landowners can ignore hazards altogether when a flagrant trespasser is on the scene. They’re saying the baseline duty—the reasonable care owed—drops for that specific class. The property owner still shouldn’t unleash harm on anyone deliberately, but the spectrum widens for the trespasser who enters without permission and acts with hostile purpose. It’s a pragmatic recognition that safety concerns can’t be perfectly balanced for every possible intruder, especially when intent shifts risk calculus in a way that ordinary guests don’t.

Why children and invitees still matter in this framework

If you’re picturing the scene, remember that the most protective posture is reserved for those who add value to the landowner’s use of the property:

• Children: The attractive nuisance doctrine keeps children in mind because they might be lured to danger by something seemingly harmless. A sandbox next to a busy street or a trampoline adjacent to a steep drop becomes a teaching moment for property owners: think ahead for how a curious kid might interact with hazards.

• Invitees: For invitees—people brought onto the property for a business purpose—the duty is at its highest. A store owner must fix or warn about known dangers, maintain safe premises, and keep aisles clear. The expectation is responsibility, because invitees contribute to the business’s function and revenue.

Discovered trespassers versus flagrant trespassers: a quick contrast

• Discovered trespassers: The owner has recognized the trespasser’s entry to some degree. The duty is more modest than for invitees but more than for a complete stranger in no-man’s-land. It’s about not worsening known hazards and perhaps offering a basic safety obligation if a danger is obvious and avoidable.

• Flagrant trespassers: The modern trend narrows protection here. The duty of care can be limited; the landowner doesn’t owe the same level of proactive safety as they would toward invitees or even discovered trespassers. The focus is less about perfect safety and more about avoiding intentional harm.

A practical lens: applying this to a real-world scenario

Let’s imagine a scenario to ground the theory. A shop owner fixes a wet spot on the floor after noticing a potential slip risk. A shopper slips anyway and files a claim. The outcome hinges on who the claimant is:

• If the person is an invitee (a shopper), the owner’s obligation is to show they acted reasonably to address the hazard, given the knowledge and the likelihood of harm.

• If the person is a discovered trespasser (the shopkeeper knew someone was on the property, perhaps someone slinking around near a back exit), the owner must still act with care but isn’t held to the same high standard as for a customer.

• If the person is a flagrant trespasser (no permission, possibly malicious behavior), the duty might be far more limited. The owner isn’t expected to invest heavily in safety against someone who is there with harmful intent, though no one should be harmed on purpose.

Why this nuance shows up in Georgia torts

Georgia law, like many other jurisdictions, uses the duty-of-care framework to balance safety with reasonable expectations of risk. The modern tilt toward flagrant trespassers reflects a practical stance: it’s not feasible to maintain the same barrier around every potential intruder, especially when the intruder’s intent is known or highly suspicious. This doesn’t give a green light to harmful behavior by the property owner; it simply calibrates expectations so that the standard of care lines up with risk and intent.

What this means for students and future practitioners

If you’re dissecting Georgia torts for the bar, here are a few takeaways to keep in your mental toolkit:

• Always identify the status of the person on the property first. The duty of care follows the relationship: invitee, licensee, discovered trespasser, or flagrant trespasser. The certainty of who is there matters more than you might think.

• Remember the attractive nuisance rule for children. It’s a strong reason why playgrounds, fencing, and carefully planned layouts often include protective features that avert a child-friendly hazard becoming an accident.

• Distinguish intent. When you’re evaluating flagrant trespassers, the focus is on intent and the corresponding practical duty. Intent shapes the risk and, consequently, the duty.

• Leverage both the general and the specific. The broad principle is “reasonable care,” but the specific categories get you to the right level of care in particular situations. In exams, you’ll often see a concise scenario that pushes you to classify the person and pull the right duty from your mental toolbox.

• Connect the dots with potential defenses. Even with a high duty toward invitees, defenses like assumptions of risk, or comparative fault sometimes change outcomes. It’s not just about whether a hazard exists, but about how a person engaged with that hazard and what measures were or weren’t taken.

A concise takeaway before we wrap

If you’re asked the question “According to the modern trend, which individuals are not covered under the reasonable care standard?” the answer is: flagrant trespassers. They’re present without permission and often with malicious intent, which nudges the duty of care down the spectrum compared to invitees or discovered trespassers. That said, no one should be harmed on purpose, and the landowner still has to be mindful of safety to avoid deliberate injury.

A few more notes to keep things grounded

• The landscape of torts is layered. While the quick rule is helpful for exams, real-life cases often hinge on the precise facts: what was known, what was preventable, and what the local jurisdiction treats as the standard of care.

• Georgia cases sometimes emphasize practical safety measures. A sidewalk with a known crack is more likely to prompt liability than a hidden trapdoor you couldn’t reasonably foresee.

• The language you’ll encounter in case briefs matters. The terms “reasonable care,” “invitees,” “licensees,” “discovered trespassers,” and “flagrant trespassers” are more than buzzwords. They’re the scaffolding you’ll lean on when you’re analyzing complex factual matrices.

If you want to see this in a broader light, look for examples of premises liability in Georgia appellate decisions. The way courts articulate the duty and chalk up what is reasonably safe can teach you a lot about how these lines are drawn in practice. And while the categories might sound old-school, the modern trend keeps evolving as courts respond to new kinds of behaviors and property usages.

Bottom line

The tale of reasonable care isn’t about banning risk; it’s about calibrating safety to the relationship and the situation. For flagrant trespassers, the modern trend grants less protection under the reasonable care standard, while children, invitees, and discovered trespassers retain more robust protections. It’s a nuanced stance, but one that makes sense when you connect the dots between intent, access, and safety.

If you’re sorting through Georgia torts topics, this is the kind of thread that keeps surfacing: explain who’s on the property, explain what the landowner knew or should have known, and explain what level of care is warranted by the relationship at hand. Do that, and you’ll have a clearer path through the questions that surface in discussions about premises liability. And who knows—that clarity might just make the next hypothetic feel a little more approachable.