Bloom Parham Victorious Before Supreme Court of Georgia in Recreational Property Act Case

By: Kurt Kastorf and Pierce Ostwalt

The Supreme Court of Georgia issued a unanimous decision today in favor of Bloom Parham’s client in a closely watched appeal involving Georgia’s Recreational Property Act (the RPA or Act). The Court’s opinion in McLamb v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, No. S26G0149 (Aug. 11, 2026), revives the lawsuit brought by our client, Gloria McLamb, against the City of Savannah, and provides much-needed clarity for property owners statewide on how the RPA’s immunity test actually works.

Read the full decision: McLamb v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, No. S26G0149 (Ga. Aug. 11, 2026).

“We are happy that this decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia brings Ms. McLamb closer to her day in court,” said Kurt Kastorf, the Bloom Parham partner who argued the case. “The Court agreed that a single visitor’s sightseeing does not, by itself, strip away her right to hold a negligent landowner accountable, and we look forward to presenting her case under the standard the Court clarified.”

Kurt Kastorf, Partner, Bloom Parham

A Sidewalk Fall in Savannah’s Historic District

Ms. McLamb visited Savannah with her family in April 2019. After taking a trolley tour of the city and stopping to see the historic Davenport House, she and her family chose to walk back to their hotel along a sidewalk in Savannah’s National Historic Landmark District rather than ride the trolley. On the walk to her hotel, Ms. McLamb tripped on a raised sidewalk paver and was seriously injured. She sued the City of Savannah, which owns the sidewalk, for her injuries.

From the Trial Court to the Supreme Court

The City moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other grounds, that the Recreational Property Act barred Ms. McLamb’s claims because she had been sightseeing, a recreational activity under the Act, when she fell. The trial court disagreed and denied the City’s motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the City was entitled to immunity under the Act because it determined that Ms. McLamb was engaged in a recreational activity at the time of the fall.

What the Supreme Court of Georgia Held

The Court reaffirmed the test for Recreational Property Act immunity. Under Mercer University v. Stofer, 306 Ga. 191 (2019), immunity turns on the “true scope and nature of the landowner’s invitation” to use its property, informed by two considerations: the nature of the activity the public was invited to engage in, and the nature of the property itself. The Court declined the City’s invitation to limit or overrule Stofer, agreeing with the interpretation of the statutory text and existing case law that the Bloom Parham team advanced.

The Court of Appeals had too narrowly interpreted and misapplied the Stofer test. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by treating Ms. McLamb’s actions at the precise moment she was injured, sightseeing and looking at a tree, as dispositive of whether the activity was recreational. While the Court of Appeals focused on what Ms. McLamb said she was doing at the time of her fall, the Supreme Court clarified that the nature-of-the-activity inquiry instead asks primarily what the public generally was invited to do on the property, not what any one visitor happened to be doing or thought she was doing when she was hurt.

A visitor’s own conduct is only one factor in the totality of the circumstances. The perspective and purpose of the individual using the property, according to the Court, is just one factor to weigh in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, not a stand-in for it. That holding squarely rejected the Court of Appeals’ approach and confirmed Bloom Parham’s arguments.

The Court vacated and remanded for the Stofer test to be properly applied. Because the Court of Appeals gave outsized weight to Ms. McLamb’s perspective of her individual activity, the Supreme Court vacated its judgment and remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to apply the clarified test, including a fresh look at whether the sidewalk itself qualifies as recreational property.

Why This Decision Matters

This ruling revives Ms. McLamb’s suit against the City of Savannah and gives property owners across Georgia, particularly municipalities responsible for sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces, much clearer guidance on when Recreational Property Act immunity actually applies. The case now returns to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Kurt Kastorf argued the case before the Supreme Court of Georgia on behalf of Ms. McLamb. Mr. Kastorf was assisted by Pierce Ostwalt of the Bloom Parham appellate team. Also joining the team as co-counsel were Gene Brooks of Brooks Law Office and Brad Stevens of The Stevens Firm. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and the Savannah Trial Lawyers Association filed amicus briefs in support of Ms. McLamb.

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 as co-counsel brought in to handle briefing and argument when the result matters most. Whether the question is Recreational Property Act immunity, governmental immunity, or a legal issue of first impression, our team pairs trial-tested judgment with appellate precision. Learn more about our appellate litigation practice, read our earlier coverage of the oral argument in this case, 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.