Hospital Visitor Injury Claims in Georgia

On this page

A visitor hurt in a hospital corridor, lobby, or parking area is not the patient, and Georgia law treats the visitor’s claim as a premises claim rather than a claim about medical care. The claim begins with the visitor’s legal status on the land, because the duty owed to an invitee differs from the duty owed to a licensee, and the hospital’s legal form can change which immunity and notice rules apply.

Invitee or Licensee

An owner or occupier that invites or induces others onto its premises for a lawful purpose owes them ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe (OCGA 51-3-1). A licensee, by contrast, is a person who is neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser, has no contractual relation with the owner, and is permitted on the premises merely for the licensee’s own interests, convenience, or gratification, and the owner is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury (OCGA 51-3-2(a), (b)).

The classification can be a question for the jury. In Cham v. ECI Management Corp., 311 Ga. 170 (2021), a person staying in a tenant’s apartment was shot in an armed robbery in the complex’s parking lot, and the Supreme Court of Georgia held that at least slight evidence supported a jury instruction on licensee status, so giving the instruction was not error.

Hazards and Inspections

Once status is set, an invitee must show the owner’s knowledge of the hazard and the invitee’s own lack of knowledge despite ordinary care (Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997)). Where an owner shows that an inspection occurred within a brief period before a fall, the Court of Appeals has held the inspection procedure adequate as a matter of law (Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. A24A1720 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2025)), so a hospital’s inspection records can matter in a visitor’s fall claim.

Evidence of how regularly staff pass a spot can supply the hospital’s constructive knowledge. In Kennestone Hospital, Inc. v. Harris, No. A07A0571 (Ga. Ct. App. May 15, 2007), a delivery driver who was not a patient stepped from a truck onto a hospital’s loading dock, landed on loose telephone books lying on the dock floor, and fell. The court treated the driver as an invitee, the hospital’s facility director acknowledged that employees from two departments regularly passed through the dock, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment, leaving to a jury whether the hospital should have known of the books and whether the driver used ordinary care.

A Premises Claim, Not a Malpractice Claim

The professional-malpractice affidavit requirement applies “[i]n any action for damages alleging professional malpractice” against a listed professional, an entity liable for a listed professional’s acts, or “[a]ny licensed health care facility alleged to be liable based upon the action or inaction of a health care professional licensed by the State of Georgia” (OCGA 9-11-9.1(a)). A claim for medical malpractice under the limitations statute is one arising out of health, medical, dental, or surgical care or service, including care or service rendered by a hospital or its employees within the scope of their employment (OCGA 9-3-70). A visitor’s fall in a corridor does not, on the face of those texts, arise from health care rendered to the visitor.

A hospital may be a private corporation, a public body, or a hospital authority. The State’s tort claims act defines the State to exclude hospital authorities, along with counties, municipalities, and other units of local government (OCGA 50-21-22(5)), so the Act’s notice and cap rules are not the ones that govern a claim against a hospital authority.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if the hospital argues that the claim is really malpractice?
Then the expert affidavit rule is at issue. Where it applies, the affidavit must come from an expert competent to testify and must state specifically at least one negligent act or omission and the factual basis for each claim (OCGA 9-11-9.1(a)).

Can a defective expert affidavit be fixed?
Yes. A defendant that moves to dismiss on that ground, with specificity, by the close of discovery exposes the complaint to dismissal, but the plaintiff may cure the defect by amendment within 30 days of service of the motion, and the court may extend that time (OCGA 9-11-9.1(e)).

  • OCGA 51-3-1; OCGA 51-3-2(a), (b)
  • Cham v. ECI Management Corp., 311 Ga. 170 (2021)
  • Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997); Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. A24A1720 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2025)
  • Kennestone Hospital, Inc. v. Harris, No. A07A0571 (Ga. Ct. App. May 15, 2007)
  • OCGA 9-11-9.1(a), (e); OCGA 9-3-70
  • OCGA 50-21-22(5)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about hospital visitor injury claims under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. A visitor’s legal status, the hospital’s legal form, and the applicable notice period depend on the specific facts. A person injured at a hospital should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *