Opinion ID: 1218655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Premises Liability Principles

Text: The majority, in its opinion, argues that the appellant, AGLC, is an occupier of land and is therefore entitled to the application of premises liability law. [1] This holding is mistaken for the following reasons. AGLC's interest in the gas pipe does not rise to the status of an occupier of land under Georgia law. In the record, AGLC states that it owns the pipe and an easement to maintain the pipe. The question of whether a party is an owner or occupier for purposes of premises liability law in Georgia depends on whether or not the party has `control of the property, whether or not [the party] has title thereto and whether or not [the party] has a superior right to possession of property which is in the possession or control of another.' Georgia Building Services v. Perry, 193 Ga. App. 288, 295 (387 SE2d 898) (1989). The record fails to show that AGLC holds any more than an easement to run a service line to the mobile home on the property in question. Nowhere in the record is there any evidence that the easement extends to the entire premises. It is undisputed that AGLC holds no title and has no right to possession of these premises. The issue remains whether AGLC had sufficient control over the premises to enable it to invoke premises liability principles. The majority stresses that AGLC's ownership of the pipeline system and its right to control and maintain those pipes equate to occupation of the land. However, an easement is only a right. . . to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property in the owner . . ., [and] it carries with it no appreciable degree of dominion over the land itself. (Emphasis supplied.) Pindar, Ga. Real Est. Law, § 8-1 (3rd ed. 1986). Here, AGLC's incidental use of a fraction of the mobile home lot does not give AGLC control of the premises. To extend the status of occupier to such an attenuated right to use the property is illogical. The majority attempts to create an analogy where, in fact, a distinction should be drawn. If we extend premises liability principles to a mere easement holder who, as in this case, exerts no appreciable degree of control over the premises, we may create a duty where none existed before. If AGLC is considered an occupier of this land, they would owe the same duty of care to land entrants as any landowner. Following the majority opinion, one can readily envision a situation where a land entrant injured on a third party's property will attach new deep-pocket defendants who merely hold a limited easement, as in this case, on the third party's land. I doubt that this is the result that the majority intends.