School Playground Injuries in Georgia
On this page
For a child hurt on a Georgia school playground, the claim depends first on who owns and runs the school and on what the child’s legal status was on the land. A public school district is shielded by immunity unless the General Assembly has waived it by statute. A private school answers under the ordinary premises statute. A young child who wanders onto school grounds after hours brings in another rule, the attractive nuisance doctrine the Supreme Court of Georgia adopted in 1982. For new elementary schools built on or after July 1, 2027, a 2025 amendment to the school facility statute also sets playground design standards, including fencing and unitary surfacing.
Public and Private Schools
A claim against a public school district depends on a statute that waives the district’s immunity and sets how far the waiver goes (Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (1994)); the Tort Claims Act, which covers the State, excludes school districts (OCGA 50-21-22(5)). A private school is an owner or occupier of land, and one who invites others onto the premises for a lawful purpose owes ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe (OCGA 51-3-1).
Design Standards for New Elementary School Playgrounds
The State Board of Education must set common minimum facility requirements that each public school facility meets to be certified for use in its educational or recreational program, including requirements on fire and physical safety. Since a 2025 amendment (Ga. L. 2025, p. 291, HB 371), those requirements must provide that each new elementary school constructed on or after July 1, 2027, that includes a playground meets design standards (OCGA 20-2-261(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)). The minimum guidelines include fencing that surrounds and encloses the entire playground area and unitary surfacing, such as turf, bonded rubber, or poured in place rubber, across at least 80 percent of the playground area. They also call for shade over at least 20 percent of the playground area, a minimum area of 10,000 square feet, a sidewalk or pathway from the school, and play components accessible for all users (OCGA 20-2-261(a)(3)(E)). The section sets facility requirements and does not mention liability or immunity.
Children Who Come Without Permission
Georgia treats a child who enters without permission as a trespasser, whatever the child’s age. The Supreme Court of Georgia applied that rule to a two-year-old who wandered from a neighbor’s visit and drowned in an unfenced pool, holding that status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee does not turn on age or mental or physical capacity (Gregory v. Johnson, 249 Ga. 151 (1982)).
The attractive nuisance doctrine is the exception. The Court explained that it protects trespassing children where their presence can be anticipated and precautions would not heavily burden the owner’s use of the land, and it adopted the approach of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, which makes a possessor of land liable for harm to trespassing children from an artificial condition when five conditions are met:
- the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass where the condition is;
- the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and realizes, or should realize, that it carries an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to those children;
- the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or see the risk;
- the possessor’s benefit from keeping the condition, and the burden of removing the danger, are slight next to the risk to the children; and
- the possessor fails to use reasonable care to remove the danger or otherwise protect the children.
The Court reversed summary judgment for the pool owners, because fact questions remained about whether they knew that small children unable to appreciate the danger were around, and whether failing to put up a fence was a failure to use reasonable care.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must an owner protect children from every possible injury?
No. The Court described the duty as reasonable care against foreseeable injury, not protection against every injury, and said that a landowner does not insure the safety of children (Gregory v. Johnson).
Does the parents’ own supervision matter?
It can be weighed, but by the jury. In Gregory, the owners argued that the parents were negligent in watching the child, and the Court left the parents’ negligence, like the owners’, to the jury.
How firmly did the Court adopt the Restatement test?
It found “the approach of the Restatement on this issue is sound and not in conflict with the laws of this state,” over the dissent of three Justices.
What happens when a public school facility falls short of the state minimum requirements?
A plan of action listing each deficiency and the time limits for correcting it must be submitted to the State Board of Education for review and approval, and the board may withhold all or part of the state funds under that part of the Code from a local unit that refuses or fails to carry out an approved plan (OCGA 20-2-261(c)).
Sources and Legal Authorities
- Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (1994); OCGA 50-21-22(5)
- OCGA 51-3-1
- OCGA 20-2-261(a), (c); Ga. L. 2025, p. 291 (HB 371)
- Gregory v. Johnson, 249 Ga. 151 (1982), adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339
Disclaimer
This article provides general information about school playground injury claims under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether immunity applies, what status a child had on the land, and which deadlines apply depend on the specific facts. A family dealing with a playground injury should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.