Can a Grandparent Sue Her Grandchild if She’s Injured While Babysitting?
A grandmother appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of her granddaughter and the granddaughter’s husband on the grandmother’s claim for personal injuries stemming from a slip and fall at the granddaughter’s home.
The grandmother contended that the trial court erred in concluding that she was a licensee at the home.
Background
The grandmother broke her leg when she slipped and fell on water in the dining room of her granddaughter’s rental home in August 2015. The granddaughter had invited her grandmother to their home to care for their two-year-old son while she and her husband went to work. The grandmother came the night before, ate dinner with the family, and then spent the night. At the time of the accident, she’d put down her great-grandson for a nap, and was walking to open the door for a visitor (her son) when she slipped on rainwater that had leaked into the home. According to the grandmother, she didn’t pay her granddaughter to stay at their home or accept any money from them to care for the child.
The granddaughter had been living in the home since 2012 and had complained to the management company about leaks since at least 2013, but nothing was ever done. They placed pots around the home to catch the water and were told that the roof needed to be replaced. The granddaughter testified that she told the grandmother the home leaked, but she never showed the her where the leaks were or told her to be careful when it rained.
The grandmother testified that she had no idea the home had a recurring water problem and had never been warned about the water. It wasn’t raining, and there was no water in the dining room when the granddaughter left to go to work.
Was the Grandmother a Licensee at her Granddaughter’s Home at the Time of Her Fall?
The grandmother sued the granddaughter and several other defendants for her personal injuries. The granddaughter moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court found that the grandmother was a licensee at the granddaughter’s home at the time of her fall. An owner owes a licensee no duty as to the condition of the premises except that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or willfully cause him harm.
Here, the trial court concluded that at the moment of her fall, the grandmother was “acting for her own interests and not mutual benefit when she fell. … More importantly, at the time of the fall, she was furthering her own personal interests and was engaged in crossing the room to greet her son … who arrived at the back door for a visit with her.”
The trial court alternatively concluded that the primary purpose of the grandmother’s presence was a social visit between a grandmother and her extended family. And even though the she was alone with her great-grandson when the fall occurred, this situation didn’t automatically convert the relationship between the grandmother and the granddaughter from licensee and host to invitee and property owner. Instead, the grandmother was primarily at the home as a guest to see her family and not as the caretaker of the child while the granddaughter and her husband were at work.
The grandmother appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that she was a licensee and that the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment in favor of the granddaughter because issues of fact remain.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision
Judge E. Trenton Brown, III of the Georgia Court of Appeals explained that the elements of legal liability of the owner or proprietor of premises for injuries that happen to people on their property vary according to whether the person injured was at the time of the injury:
- A trespasser, a licensee, a visitor under invitation, express or implied; or
- A person standing in some special relation recognized by law.
The owner or proprietor of premises is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury. As to an invitee, the owner or proprietor owes the duty to exercise ordinary care. Moreover, whether a person is an invitee or licensee depends upon the nature of his or her relation or contact with the owner or tenant of the premises, the judge said. Quoting a 2021 Court of Appeals decision, Judge Brown went on to say:
If the relation solely benefits the person injured, he is at most a licensee. If, on the other hand, the relation was of mutual interest to the parties, he is an invitee. While the mutuality of interest required to render a person an invitee does not necessarily contemplate mutual economic or monetary advantage, the legal status of a mere social guest is, nevertheless, that of a licensee. And the fact that incidental services are performed by the guest during the course of his visit does not make him an invitee. But if the primary purpose of the visit is to perform services for the host or services mutually beneficial to host and guest, the legal status of the visitor is that of an invitee.
Here, the grandmother contended that her purpose for being at the granddaughter’s home was to care for her two-year-old great-grandson, and that at the time of her fall she was the sole individual at the home caring for the child. The fact that she had a visitor didn’t change the character of her obligations at her granddaughter’s home. As a result, she asserted that her status was that of an invitee and not a licensee, and the trial court erred in finding otherwise.
Judge Brown and the Court of Appeals agreed that the grandmother was an invitee because the primary purpose of her visit was to care for her two-year-old great-grandson while the granddaughter went to work. At the very least, the record supported a finding that both parties received a benefit from the grandmother’s visit. The granddaughter and her husband received help with their two-year-old son while they were both at work, and the grandmother was able to visit with the family. The fact that she was walking to answer the door at the exact moment she fell didn’t change the fact that she was the sole caretaker for the granddaughter’s two-year-old son.
It followed, the judge opined, that the grandmother’ status in this case was that of an invitee and that the trial court erred in concluding that she was a licensee and granting summary judgment to the granddaughter on that basis.
Further, Judge Brown concluded that the primary case upon which the trial court relied in granting summary judgment to the granddaughter was distinguishable because in that case, the main purpose of the plaintiff’s visit to her parents’ home was for her own convenience. In this case, the primary purpose of the grandmother’ visit to the granddaughter’s home was for their convenience.
Moreover, as an invitee, the granddaughter owed the duty to exercise ordinary care. As the evidence was disputed as to whether the granddaughter warned the grandmother about the condition of the home, the trial court erred in concluding that the grandmother couldn’t prove that the granddaughter failed to meet the standard of care owed to her. The judgment was reversed. Adams v. Lee, No. A24A1345, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 360, at *1 (Ga. App. Sep. 17, 2024).
Contact us
You should have an Atlanta premise liability personal injury attorney who’s delivered results in these types of cases. We have won major victories for our clients including a recent $2 million jury verdict for a premises case.
Working with a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer residents trust makes a significant difference. Your personal injury lawyer must understand Georgia rules of evidence and know how to effectively apply them at trial. Our law firm has extensive experience in this area, and we handle serious truck and auto accident cases every day. We are happy to answer your questions and we offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).