OUR OPINIONS: No immunity for agritourism


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/10/08

Senate passage of a bill giving agritourism broad immunity from civil liability demonstrates the power of special interests in Georgia.

Senate Bill 449, the Landowners Protection Act of 2008, exempts agritourism businesses —- petting zoos, pick-your-own orchards, hunting preserves, farm/vacation sites —- from the standards of liability that govern all other businesses.

Under current law, business owners can be held liable for injuries on their property if they fail to exercise reasonable care. Promoted by Gov. Sonny Perdue, SB 449 erases current liability standards and says that agritourism owners can only be held liable if they are wanton and willful —- a boon to the insurance policy writers who cover farms.

"This is a solution looking for a problem," said state Sen. David Adelman (D-Atlanta). "There hasn't been a single case that I know of where agritourism has been threatened by lawsuits. The current Georgia law with regard to farms and agritourism requires them to exercise ordinary care and take care of their facilities the way any other business does."

Republicans also worry about the impact of the bill. "If I knock on a farmer's door and ask if I can fish off his dock, I don't expect the dock to be in good repair," said Sen. Dan Weber (R-Dunwoody).

"But if I come with friends to fish as a result of advertising by that farmer, and pay, I expect that dock to be in good repair. If I am hunting and fishing free of charge, the farmer has immunity. If he charges me money and I get hurt as a result of his negligence, he should be liable."

Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland) gave the example of a farm tour in which the farmer left a tractor running and someone jumped in and ran down other tourgoers.

"Today, there would be recovery against Farmer Brown for that accident," he said. "If you raise the standard to gross negligence, then you would have to prove that Farmer Brown willfully and wantonly neglected to turn the tractor off, which is a far higher standard."

Proponents argue that the bill will encourage agritourism in economically depressed areas of rural Georgia. But rural Georgia could also benefit from a Wal-Mart or Target. Why can't those chains —- or every mom and pop antique store, cafe or gift shop —- argue that they, too, should be handed a reprieve from the reasonable-care standard of legal liability?

The Senate is on a dangerous path with this bill, which will end up hurting Georgians. What happens to the family of five when the dad is paralyzed after falling out of a poorly secured tree stand in a commercial hunting preserve?

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bill Heath (R-Bremen), argued in favor of personal responsibility, but never mentioned the responsibilities of the landowners who open their land to the public for profit.

-- Maureen Downey, for the editorial board

Related Subjects

Search AJC Archives

Search staff-written and other selected articles.
Advanced search

from 1985 to present     from 1868 - 1939
  

Kudzu.com services

Find the right people for the job:

Keyword     Business Name

Powered by Kudzu

AJCPets » The community for Atlanta pet lovers