A land possessor must warn known or anticipated trespassers about hidden, artificial dangers.

Who bears the duty when trespassers are known or anticipated?

Let’s start with the core idea in plain terms: landowners don’t owe trespassers the same blanket protection as guests or licensees. But they do owe a real duty when they know, or reasonably should know, that people will come onto the land. And that duty focuses on hidden, artificial dangers—things a trespasser wouldn’t likely see or spot on their own. That’s the essence of the rule you’ll encounter on Georgia torts questions and essays: beware hidden hazards, and either fix them or warn about them.

What counts as a hidden, artificial danger?

Think of hazards on a property that are not obvious to someone who doesn’t own or maintain the land. The danger is not just that something is dangerous, but that it’s man-made and not easily detected by an ordinary trespasser. Examples would include:

• An unmarked hole or a drain opening covered by leaves.

• An old, decaying structure with rotten posts or loose boards that might collapse without warning.

• A construction site feature: exposed rebar, unsecured scaffolding, or a partially built ramp that’s unstable.

• Irrigation pits, man-made ponds with no warning signs, or electrical panels that aren’t fenced or labeled.

• Any other artificial condition that a trespasser wouldn’t reasonably anticipate encountering.

In short, the focus is on risks created by human activity or design on the land—things you as the possessor either put there or permitted to remain, and that are not obvious at a quick glance.

Why the duty isn’t about letting trespassers wander free or compensating them

You’ll see three other answer choices pop up in exams or discussions, and they miss the point for a different reason:

• A: Allow them to wander freely. Some people imagine trespassers as an inconvenience to be tolerated. But the legal duty isn’t about letting people roam unchecked; it’s about avoiding preventable harm from hidden dangers you know or should know exist.

• B: Provide compensation for trespassing. Trespassers generally assume the risk of entering someone else’s land. Liability isn’t tied to paying a price for trespass; it’s tied to keeping the hazards that you know about under reasonable control or clearly warning about them.

• D: Prevent them from entering at all costs. That’s not a realistic or practical standard. The duty isn’t a blank check to seal off every inch of land; it’s a duty to manage known dangers. If entry is unavoidable, warning or remediation becomes the key.

Let me explain how this duty works in practice

Georgia courts typically frame the duty as “reasonably safe conditions” for people who are known or anticipated to come onto the land. Even if someone is trespassing, the landowner isn’t absolved of responsibility for creating or failing to warn about hidden, artificial dangers.

Here’s the practical takeaway:

• If you know people will come onto your property (or you should reasonably expect that they will), you must take steps to reduce risk from hidden hazards you’ve created or allow to exist.

• If eliminating the danger isn’t feasible, you must warn about it clearly and adequately so a trespasser has a chance to avoid the harm.

• The focus is on the condition of the site, the foreseeability of trespass, and whether the danger is hidden or obvious.

The difference between hidden and obvious dangers matters. If a trespasser can see the hazard from a reasonable distance, the duty to warn is weaker. If the danger is hidden—concealed by shadows, vegetation, or the absence of a warning—the landowner’s duty to warn or repair strengthens.

Why this rule matters beyond the test-taking

This isn’t just about ticking boxes on a multiple-choice question. It reflects everyday realities. Imagine you own an old property with a collapsed fence around a pit, or a backyard with an unfenced, in-ground pool that has a simple “Keep Out” sign but no barrier. If a neighbor’s child strays into that area and is hurt by the hazard, the question isn’t whether trespass occurred—it’s whether the landowner reasonably should have anticipated someone coming onto the land and whether they did enough to warn about or fix the danger.

Or consider a scenario where a porch collapses because it’s rotten and you’ve known about the decay for months. If a passerby or a trespasser would not have noticed the danger unless you failed to repair it, the owner could face liability for injuries caused by that hidden hazard.

Balancing act: risk, notice, and reasonable steps

A helpful mental model is to picture a balancing act among three ideas:

• Notice: Did the landowner know or reasonably know that people could be on the property?

• Foreseeability: Was a harm likely if the hazard remained unaddressed?

• Feasibility: Could the owner realistically fix the hazard or reasonably warn about it?

If you can answer yes to all three, the duty rises: you need to take proactive steps to remove or warn about the danger. If the answer is no—if the danger isn’t hidden, or if trespass is highly unlikely, or if fixing the hazard would be extraordinarily burdensome—the duty may be lighter or not present.

A quick contrast worth remembering

• Hidden, artificial danger you created or allowed: warning or removal required if trespass is known or anticipated.

• Open, obvious danger: less of a duty to warn, because a trespasser can see the risk.

• Child trespasser and “attractive nuisance” concerns: that’s a separate, related line of doctrine that can add urgency to fixing or securing hazards, particularly where children might be drawn to something dangerous.

What landowners can do to be reasonably prepared

If you own land, here are practical steps that align with the duty to warn or fix hidden dangers:

• Regular inspections: do periodic checks for holes, unstable structures, or any new artificial condition that could pose a risk.

• Clear marking and barriers: post signs where hazards exist and install fences or barriers to prevent access to dangerous areas.

• Prompt repairs: address any structural decay, exposed utilities, or unsafe features as soon as you notice them.

• Documentation: keep a simple log of what you’ve found and what you’ve done about it. It isn’t a legal shield by itself, but it helps show you took reasonable steps.

• Clear warnings: if a hazard cannot be immediately fixed, use conspicuous warnings that a typical trespasser would notice and understand.

• Seasonal considerations: be mindful that weather or seasonal changes can reveal hidden hazards—after rain, snowmelt, or leaf fall, re-check and re-warn if needed.

A few closing thoughts

This topic might seem like a dry corner of tort law, but it’s really about everyday safety and civil responsibility. The land you care for becomes a shared space in a sense, and the law invites you to approach that space with a judicious mix of caution and practicality. It’s about recognizing when you can prevent harm with a simple fix or a clear warning, rather than letting a hidden danger become someone else’s misfortune.

If you’re hearing this and thinking about your own property or a hypothetical you’ve seen in class, you’re on the right track. Ask yourself: is the danger hidden or obvious? Is it artificial? Could a reasonable person foresee harm, and could I feasibly remove the hazard or warn about it? The answers give you a solid feel for how the duty shapes outcomes in real life.

To reframe it in one sentence: landowners must act with sensible care toward known or anticipated trespassers by removing hidden, artificial hazards or giving clear warnings about them. That balance—protecting people from hidden risks while not overburdening landowners—keeps the property landscape safe without turning every yard into a fortress.

If you’d like, we can walk through a few real-world scenarios and map out how the duty would apply. For now, remember this: when danger isn’t obvious and it’s man-made, you owe a watchful eye and a thoughtful response. That’s at the heart of how Georgia torts treats trespasser safety, and it’s a principle that tends to stay simple in practice, even if the case law gets a bit tangled at times.