reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
GA Code § 51-7-61 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 7 - False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation|Article 4 - Detention or Arrest on Suspicion of Shoplifting, Theft, or Film Piracy|§ 51-7-61. Activation of Antishoplifting Device as Constituting Probable Cause for Detention; Notice of Such Device to Be Posted

  As used in this Code section, the term "antishoplifting or inventory control device" means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal of specially marked or tagged merchandise from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure or from a protected area within such an enclosure.   In the case of a mercantile establishment utilizing an antishoplifting or inventory control device, the automatic activation of the device as a result of a person exiting the establishment or a protected area within the establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator. Each detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.   This Code section shall apply only with respect to mercantile establishments in which a notice has been posted in a clear and visible manner advising patrons of the establishment that an antishoplifting or inventory control device is being utilized in the establishment.    (Ga. L. 1979, p. 762, § 1.)   Cross references.   - Shoplifting, § 16-8-14.   Code Commission notes.   - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2000, a colon was deleted following "the term" in subsection (a).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Failure by employee to deactivate antishoplifting tag.    - It makes no difference to "reasonable cause," as used in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-61, whether or not negligence on the part of a store employee in failing to deactivate a special tag on merchandise set off an antishoplifting device. What matters is whether the method and time of detention were reasonable within the statutory limitations. Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 184 Ga. App. 98, 360 S.E.2d 649 (1987); Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 328, 477 S.E.2d 631 (1996).   Observations of store manager constitute visual "inquiry."    - When store manager, after the antishoplifting alarm had sounded, observed the customer remove from the customer's pocket and then place on a rack an item of merchandise for which the plaintiff had not paid and with which the plaintiff had attempted to leave the store, such observations constituted a visual "inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation" of the antishoplifting device. Arnold v. Eckerd Drugs of Ga., Inc., 183 Ga. App. 211, 358 S.E.2d 632 (1987).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Admissibility of defendant's rules or instructions for dealing with shoplifters, in action for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution, 31 A.L.R.3d 705.
GA Code § 51-7-62 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 7 - False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation|Article 4 - Detention or Arrest on Suspicion of Shoplifting, Theft, or Film Piracy|§ 51-7-62. Actions for False Arrest and False Imprisonment for Individuals Suspected of Film Piracy

 Whenever the owner, operator, or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility or any agent or employee of the owner, operator, or lessee detains, arrests, or causes to be detained or arrested any person reasonably thought to be engaged in film piracy in violation of Code Section 16-8-62 and, as a result of the detention or arrest, the person so detained or arrested brings an action for false arrest or false imprisonment against the owner, operator, lessee, agent, or employee, no recovery shall be had by the plaintiff in such action where it is established by competent evidence:    That the plaintiff had so conducted himself or herself or behaved in such manner as to cause a person of reasonable prudence to believe that the plaintiff, at or immediately prior to the time of the detention or arrest, was committing the offense of film piracy, as defined by Code Section 16-8-62; or   That the manner of the detention or arrest and the length of time during which such plaintiff was detained was under all the circumstances reasonable.     (Code 1981, §51-7-62, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 341, § 2.)
GA Code § 51-7-82 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 7 - False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation|Article 5 - Abusive Litigation|§ 51-7-82. Defenses

  It shall be a complete defense to any claim for abusive litigation that the person against whom a claim of abusive litigation is asserted has voluntarily withdrawn, abandoned, discontinued, or dismissed the civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, civil process, or other position which the injured person claims constitutes abusive litigation within 30 days after the mailing of the notice required by subsection (a) of Code Section 51-7-84 or prior to a ruling by the court relative to the civil proceeding, claim, defense, motion, appeal, civil process, or other position, whichever shall first occur; provided, however, that this defense shall not apply where the alleged act of abusive litigation involves the seizure or interference with the use of the injured person's property by process of attachment, execution, garnishment, writ of possession, lis pendens, injunction, restraining order, or similar process which results in special damage to the injured person.   It shall be a complete defense to any claim for abusive litigation that the person against whom a claim of abusive litigation is asserted acted in good faith; provided, however, that good faith shall be an affirmative defense and the burden of proof shall be on the person asserting the actions were taken in good faith.   It shall be a complete defense to any claim for abusive litigation that the person against whom a claim of abusive litigation is asserted was substantially successful on the issue forming the basis for the claim of abusive litigation in the underlying civil proceeding.     (Code 1981, §51-7-82, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 408, § 2.)
GA Code § 51-7-85 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 7 - False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation|Article 5 - Abusive Litigation|§ 51-7-85. Exclusive Remedy

 On and after April 3, 1989, no claim other than as provided in this article or in Code Section 9-15-14 shall be allowed, whether statutory or common law, for the torts of malicious use of civil proceedings, malicious abuse of civil process, nor abusive litigation, provided that claims filed prior to such date shall not be affected. This article is the exclusive remedy for abusive litigation.    (Code 1981, §51-7-85, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 408, § 2.)   Code Commission notes.   - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, "April 3, 1989" was substituted for "the effective date of this article" near the beginning of the Code section.   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Section not applicable. Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 405 S.E.2d 265, cert. denied, 199 Ga. App. 906, 405 S.E.2d 265 (1991).    A claim for tortious interference with contract cannot be predicated upon an allegedly improper filing of a lawsuit. Phillips v. MacDougald, 219 Ga. App. 152, 464 S.E.2d 390 (1995).   Preemption.    - Grant of summary judgment was affirmed because the trial court did not err in holding that the company's claims against the law firm fell within the purview of the abusive litigation statute, should have been brought under that statute, and thus were preempted by the exclusivity provisions of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-85. Meadow Springs Recovery, LLC v. Wofford, 319 Ga. App. 79, 734 S.E.2d 100 (2012).   Notice required prior to suit.    - Trial court erred by failing to dismiss an invasion of privacy claim through public disclosure of private facts because the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80 et seq., by not providing statutory notice of a claim as required by O.C.G.A. § 51-7-84(a). Rogers v. Dupree, 349 Ga. App. 777, 824 S.E.2d 823 (2019), cert. denied, No. S19C1170, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 880 (Ga. 2019), cert. denied, No. S19C1132, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 889 (Ga. 2019).    Cited in Seckinger v. Holtzendorf, 200 Ga. App. 604, 409 S.E.2d 76 (1991); Sneakers of Cobb County v. Cobb County, 265 Ga. 410, 455 S.E.2d 834 (1995); Great W. Bank v. Southeastern Bank, 234 Ga. App. 420, 507 S.E.2d 191 (1998); Hagemann v. City of Marietta, 287 Ga. App. 1, 650 S.E.2d 363 (2007).
GA Code § 51-11-3 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-3. Extenuation and Mitigation of Damages

 Circumstances not amounting to justification may be pleaded in extenuation and mitigation of damages.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2984; Code 1868, § 2997; Code 1873, § 3052; Code 1882, § 3052; Civil Code 1895, § 3892; Civil Code 1910, § 4489; Code 1933, § 105-1802.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 74 Am. Jur. 2d, Torts, § 49 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 184 et seq.   ALR.    - Duty to mitigate damages, 81 A.L.R. 282.    Presumption and burden of proof regarding mitigation of damages, 134 A.L.R. 242.   Pleading last clear chance doctrine, 25 A.L.R.2d 254.   Pleading matter in mitigation of damages in tort action other than libel and slander, 75 A.L.R.2d 473.   Nonuse of seat belts as failure to mitigate damages, 80 A.L.R.3d 1025.   Assault: Criminal liability as barring or mitigating recovery of punitive damages, 98 A.L.R.3d 870.
GA Code § 51-11-4 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-4. Arbitrament and Award

 Arbitrament and award constitute a good defense to a tort action, and the rules applied to this defense in a contract action apply equally to tort actions.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2994; Code 1868, § 3007; Code 1873, § 3062; Code 1882, § 3062; Civil Code 1895, § 3902; Civil Code 1910, § 4499; Code 1933, § 105-1804.)
GA Code § 51-11-5 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-5. Former Recovery and Pendency of Another Action

 Former recovery and the pendency of another action are good defenses in tort actions and are subject to the same rules as when applied to contracts.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 2995; Code 1868, § 3008; Code 1873, § 3063; Code 1882, § 3063; Civil Code 1895, § 3903; Civil Code 1910, § 4500; Code 1933, § 105-1805.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 74 Am. Jur. 2d, Torts, § 49 et seq.   ALR.    - Judgment on claim as bar to action to recover amount of payment which was not litigated in previous action, 13 A.L.R. 1151.    Judgment against or settlement by person responsible for a personal injury as affecting his liability on account of improper medical or surgical treatment of injured person, 29 A.L.R. 1313.    Judgment for or against master in action for servant's tort as bar to action against servant, 31 A.L.R. 194.    Conclusiveness, as to negligence or contributory negligence, of judgment in death action, in subsequent action between defendant in the death action and statutory beneficiary of that action, as affected by objection by lack of identity of parties, 125 A.L.R. 908.    Application of rule against splitting cause of action, or of doctrine of res judicata, to item of single cause of action omitted from issues through ignorance, mistake, or fraud, 142 A.L.R. 905.   Judgment in action growing out of accident as res judicata, as to negligence or contributory negligence, in later action growing out of same accident by or against one not a party to earlier action, 23 A.L.R.2d 710.   Admissibility of evidence of unperformed compromise agreement, 26 A.L.R.2d 858.   Liability insurer's settlement of claim against insured as bar to insured's tort action against person receiving settlement, 32 A.L.R.2d 937.   Right to jury trial on issue of validity of release, 43 A.L.R.2d 786.   Appealability of order vacating, or refusing to vacate, approval of settlement of infant's tort claim, 77 A.L.R.2d 801.   Judgment in spouse's action for personal injuries as binding, as regards loss of consortium and similar resulting damage, upon other spouse not a party to the action, 12 A.L.R.3d 933.   Judgment in action against seller or supplier of product as res judicata in action against manufacturer for injury from defective product, or vice versa, 34 A.L.R.3d 518.   Judgment against parents in action for loss of minor's services as precluding minor's action for personal injuries, 41 A.L.R.3d 536.   Validity and effect of "Mary Carter" or similar agreement setting maximum liability of one cotortfeasor and providing for reduction or extinguishment thereof relative to recovery against nonagreeing cotortfeasor, 22 A.L.R.5th 483.
GA Code § 51-11-8 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-8. Liability of Person Employed by Compressed Gas Dealer Who Provides Assistance Upon Request of Law Enforcement Agency

  Any person employed by a licensed compressed gas dealer who provides assistance upon request of any law enforcement agency, fire department, rescue or emergency squad, or any governmental agency in the event of an accident or other emergency involving the use, handling, transportation, transmission, or storage of liquefied petroleum gas, when the reasonably apparent circumstances require prompt decisions and actions, shall not be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act of commission or omission on his part in the course of his rendering such assistance unless such acts or omissions amount to willful or wanton negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Nothing in this Code section shall be deemed or construed to relieve any person from liability for civil damages: (1) where the accident or emergency referred to in this subsection involved his own facilities or equipment or (2) resulting from any act of commission or omission on his part in the course of providing care or assistance in the normal and ordinary course of conducting his own business or profession, nor shall this Code section be construed to relieve from liability for civil damages any other tort-feasor not referred to in this Code section.   Nothing in subsection (a) of this Code section applies to the rendering of such care, assistance, or advice where the same is rendered for remuneration beyond reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses in connection therewith, or with the expectation of such remuneration, from the recipient or recipients of such care, assistance, or advice or someone on his or their behalf.   Subsection (a) of this Code section shall not preclude liability for civil damages as the result of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct shall constitute gross negligence.     (Code 1933, § 105-1807, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 2211, § 1; Code 1981, §51-11-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 2211, § 2; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 40.)   Code Commission notes.   - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1985, in the second sentence of subsection (a) "in this subsection" was substituted for "above".   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.   - Construction and application of "Good Samaritan" statutes, 68 A.L.R.4th 294.
GA Code § 51-11-9 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-9. Immunity From Civil Liability for Threat or Use of Force in Defense of Habitation

 A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.    (Code 1981, §51-11-9, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 515, § 1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 477, § 3/SB 396.)
GA Code § 51-11-10 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-11-10. Property Owner Selling Timber Not Liable for Trespass or Conversion of Property Caused by Third Party; Establishment of Property Boundaries

 There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a property owner selling timber from his or her land and acting in good faith shall not be liable to adjoining landowners for any trespass or conversion of property caused by a third party timber harvester who is not subject to the control and direction of the property owner selling timber if, prior to the harvesting of such timber:    A land surveyor possessing a certificate of registration issued by the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has surveyed the property from which the timber is to be harvested and plainly established and clearly marked the metes and bounds of the property such that a reasonable person would know or should have known of the existence of such markings when harvesting the timber and has provided a copy of that survey to the third-party timber harvester;   The boundaries of the property from which timber is sold have been completely and accurately indicated using physical markers that are clearly visible such that a reasonable person would know or should have known of the existence of such physical markers; or   The property owner has obtained a document indicating where the boundaries are and signed by adjoining landowners indicating that they agree on the location of such boundaries and has provided a copy of such document to the third-party timber harvester; provided, however, that such document shall only create a presumption in favor of the property owner with regard to those landowners who have signed such document.     (Code 1981, §51-11-10, enacted by Ga. L. 2014, p. 695, § 6/HB 790.)   Cross references.   - Accrual of action for loss of timber, § 9-3-32.
GA Code § 51-11-21 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 11 - Defenses to Tort Actions|Article 2 - Satisfaction|§ 51-11-21. Tender of Damages in Tort Action; Effect of Continuing Tender

 A person committing a tort may, before or after an action is brought, tender to the person injured such an amount of damages as in his judgment will cover the injury; and, if the same shall be rejected, he may deposit the amount in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county of his residence as a continuing tender; and, if the jury trying the cause shall give no more damages than the amount tendered, the plaintiff shall recover no costs accruing subsequently to the time of the tender.   (Laws 1767, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 562; Code 1863, § 2988; Code 1868, § 3001; Code 1873, § 3056; Code 1882, § 3056; Civil Code 1895, § 3896; Civil Code 1910, § 4493; Code 1933, § 105-1903.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Right to withdraw tender after money deposited or paid in court to keep tender good, 73 A.L.R. 1281.
GA Code § 51-12-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 12 - Damages|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-12-1. Types of Damages; Evidence Admissible in Actions Involving Special Damages

  Damages may be either general or special, direct or consequential.   In any civil action, whether in tort or in contract, for the recovery of damages arising from a tortious injury in which special damages are sought to be recovered or evidence of same is otherwise introduced by the plaintiff, evidence of all compensation, indemnity, insurance (other than life insurance), wage loss replacement, income replacement, or disability benefits or payments available to the injured party from any and all governmental or private sources and the cost of providing and the extent of such available benefits or payments shall be admissible for consideration by the trier of fact. The trier of fact, in its discretion, may consider such available benefits or payments and the cost thereof but shall not be directed to reduce an award of damages accordingly.    (Orig. Code 1863, § 3001; Code 1868, § 3014; Code 1873, § 3069; Code 1882, § 3069; Civil Code 1895, § 3909; Civil Code 1910, § 4506; Code 1933, § 105-2005; Ga. L. 1987, p. 915, § 3.)   Law reviews.   - For article, "Georgia's New Collateral Source Rule," see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (1987). For article, "Recovery of Lost Profit Damages for Business Interruption or Destruction," see 28 Ga. St. B. J. 63 (1991). For annual survey on law of evidence, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 257 (1991). For article, "The Georgia Jury and Negligence: The View From the (Federal) Bench," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 59 (1992). For note, "The Collateral Source Rule in Georgia: A New Method of Equal Protection Analysis Brings a Return to the Old Common Law Rule," see 8 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 835 (1992).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Evidence in Special Damages Cases    RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 22 Am. Jur. 2d, Damages, §§ 1 et seq., 18.   C.J.S.   - 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 2.   ALR.   - Separate trial of issues of liability and damages in tort, 85 A.L.R.2d 9.   Validity and construction of state statute abrogating collateral source rules as to medical malpractice actions, 74 A.L.R.4th 32.
GA Code § 51-12-10 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 51 - Torts|Chapter 12 - Damages|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 51-12-10. Exception to Rule Against Recovery of Remote Damages

 When a tort is committed, a contract is broken, or a duty is omitted with knowledge and for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of certain contemplated benefits, the remote damages occasioned thereby become a proper subject for the consideration of the jury.   (Orig. Code 1863, § 3006; Code 1868, § 3019; Code 1873, § 3074; Code 1882, § 3074; Civil Code 1895, § 3914; Civil Code 1910, § 4511; Code 1933, § 105-2010.)   RESEARCH REFERENCES   C.J.S.   - 25 C.J.S., Damages, § 36 et seq.   ALR.   - "Out of pocket" or "benefit of bargain" as proper rule of damages for fraudulent representations inducing, contract for the transfer of property, 13 A.L.R.3d 875.   Tenant's right to damages for landlord's breach of tenant's option to purchase, 17 A.L.R.3d 976.   Profits of business as factor in determining loss of earnings or earning capacity in action for personal injury or death, 45 A.L.R.3d 345.