Kurt Kastorf Argues a Recreational Property Act Immunity Case Before the Supreme Court of Georgia
▶ Watch Kurt Kastorf’s oral argument before the Supreme Court of Georgia
Bloom Parham partner Kurt Kastorf recently argued before the Supreme Court of Georgia in McLamb v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah (No. S26G0149), a closely watched appeal addressing immunity under Georgia’s Recreational Property Act. The firm was brought on as co-counsel after the Court granted certiorari, to handle briefing and oral argument before the justices of the state’s highest court. The case asks the Court to clarify when a government landowner may claim Recreational Property Act immunity.
What Is the Recreational Property Act?
Georgia’s Recreational Property Act, OCGA § 51-3-20 et seq., is designed to encourage owners to open their land to the public for recreational use. It does so by limiting an owner’s liability when the owner makes property available for public recreational use, without charge, and a visitor is injured. The Act is presently understood to apply to both private and government landowners, but its protection is not absolute. An owner can still be held liable, for example, for a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. OCGA § 51-3-25. Georgia courts have wrestled with the statute’s boundaries for decades, and its scope has frequently been misunderstood by the lower courts, including the line between Recreational Property Act immunity and ordinary premises liability.
How the Case Arose
The firm’s client, Ms. McLamb, suffered extensive injuries when she tripped and fell on a poorly maintained section of a City-owned sidewalk while walking back to her hotel in Savannah’s downtown historic district. The City asserted that the Recreational Property Act shielded it from liability for her injuries.
The Procedural History
Before Bloom Parham’s involvement, co-counsel Gene Brooks of Brooks Law Office and Brad Stevens of The Stevens Firm, P.C., defeated the City’s motion for summary judgment, in which the City sought immunity under the Recreational Property Act. The City appealed that ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which reversed. Ms. McLamb then petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia for certiorari, and the Court granted review in McLamb v. City of Savannah, No. S26G0149, to address the state of the law under the Recreational Property Act.
Why the Case Matters
Recreational Property Act questions arise often in Georgia, and the outcome here could shape how the Act applies to publicly-owned infrastructure such as sidewalks in a city’s historic district. A clear decision would give landowners, municipalities, and injured members of the public better guidance on when Recreational Property Act immunity applies and when ordinary premises liability rules govern instead. It would also bring needed consistency to an area where, as the petition noted, the lower courts have often misunderstood the statute.
Status of the Appeal and the Bloom Parham Team
The appeal is pending before the Supreme Court of Georgia following oral argument on June 17, 2026, and a decision is expected by November 2026. Kurt Kastorf, Simon Bloom, and Pierce Ostwalt of the Bloom Parham appellate team are handling this matter.
Facing a Recreational Property Act or Appellate Challenge? Talk to Bloom Parham
Bloom Parham’s appellate lawyers step into high-stakes appeals at every level of the Georgia and federal courts, often brought in as co-counsel to handle briefing and argument when the result matters most. Our team pairs trial-tested judgment with appellate precision, whether the question is Recreational Property Act immunity, a bet-the-company business dispute, or an issue of first impression. Learn more about our appellate litigation practice, read about our recent appellate wins under Georgia’s new petition-for-review statute, or get to know Kurt Kastorf, Simon Bloom, and Pierce Ostwalt. When the stakes are high, contact our appellate team to talk through your case.
