Shedeke v. Garrett

Facts

On August 20, 2018, Patricia Garrett arrived at her home and discovered a large hole in her front porch. Concerned about the damage, she contacted the Stone Mountain Police Department (SMPD) to report the issue. Officer Julio Aponte was dispatched to investigate. Upon arrival, Garrett met him at her side door and showed him the damage. While on the scene, Aponte received a higher-priority call and left, informing Garrett that he would return later to complete his investigation. He did not mention that another officer might be sent in his place.

After Aponte departed, Garrett took precautions to block access to the damaged area by placing several large potted plants at the base of the steps leading to her porch. A neighbor also covered the hole with a piece of plastic to prevent Garrett’s cats from falling in.

Subsequently, Officer Kwabena Shedeke was dispatched to Garrett’s home. He could not recall whether he reviewed the Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) system for details about the call before arriving. Upon reaching the house, he climbed over the plants, ascended the steps, and rang the doorbell. Before Garrett answered, he turned around and fell into the hole. His body camera recorded the incident, showing that only about three seconds elapsed between ringing the doorbell and his fall.

Shedeke later filed a premises liability lawsuit against Garrett, alleging that she breached her duty of care by failing to warn him of the hazard. The trial court granted summary judgment in Garrett’s favor, finding that Shedeke was a licensee rather than an invitee and that Garrett’s conduct was neither willful nor wanton.

Issues & Holdings

1. Did the trial court err in determining that Shedeke was a licensee rather than an invitee?

Holding: No. Under the fireman’s rule, Shedeke was a licensee because he was on the premises in his professional capacity responding to the very hazard that caused his injury.

2. Did the trial court err in finding that Garrett’s actions were not willful or wanton?

Holding: No. The court concluded that Garrett did not act with the level of recklessness or intent required to impose liability on a landowner for injuries to a licensee.

Reasoning

1. Officer Shedeke’s Legal Status as a Licensee

Georgia law differentiates between invitees, who enter property for the benefit of the landowner, and licensees, who enter for their own purposes. While landowners owe invitees a duty of ordinary care, they owe only a lesser duty to licensees: to avoid willful or wanton injury after the owner becomes aware of or should anticipate the presence of a licensee near the peril.

Under the “fireman’s rule,” public safety officers—including police officers—who enter private property in their professional capacity are deemed licensees rather than invitees, even when responding to an explicit request for assistance. The rationale is that property owners should not be held to the same duty of care toward responding officers as they would be to other visitors in non-emergency situations.

Here, Shedeke was responding to Garrett’s report about a hole in her porch. The court determined that the very hazard that led to his injury was the reason for his presence, aligning with precedent barring recovery under the fireman’s rule.

The court cited London Iron & Metal Co. v. Abney, 245 Ga. 759 (1980), where a police officer responding to a burglary alarm was classified as a licensee, and Kapherr v. MFG Chemical, Inc., 277 Ga. App. 112 (2005), which applied the rule to an EMT injured at a chemical spill. Because the circumstances of Shedeke’s visit fit squarely within the fireman’s rule, the trial court correctly classified him as a licensee.

2. Absence of Willful or Wanton Conduct

Because Shedeke was a licensee, Garrett’s duty was limited to refraining from willfully or wantonly exposing him to hidden perils. Conduct is considered “wanton and willful” when it demonstrates either (1) an intent to cause harm or (2) such reckless disregard for consequences that it is tantamount to intent.

The court found no evidence that Garrett acted with such intent. She had informed SMPD of the hazard, and the CAD system (accessible to officers) contained details about the hole. She also placed large potted plants at the base of the stairs to prevent access and was unaware that another officer, rather than Aponte, would be responding.

Further, Georgia courts have set a high bar for wanton and willful conduct. In Sands v. Lindsey, 314 Ga. App. 160 (2012), the court found no wanton conduct when a homeowner failed to turn on exterior lights or meet an EMT at the door before the EMT ran into a glass storm door.

Likewise, in Martin v. Gaither, 219 Ga. App. 646 (1995), a driver’s failure to obey traffic signals did not rise to the level of willful or wanton misconduct when an officer directing traffic was struck by a bus.

Because Garrett took reasonable precautions and lacked any intent to harm, the trial court correctly found that no jury question existed on willful or wanton conduct.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Garrett. Under Georgia law, Shedeke was a licensee rather than an invitee, and Garrett’s conduct did not meet the threshold for willful or wanton misconduct necessary to impose liability on a landowner for a licensee’s injuries.

This case demonstrates the application of the fireman’s rule in the context of a premises liability case. It is important to keep this rule in mind anytime you have a client who was acting as a law enforcement officer or other first responder when they were injured on the defendant’s premises. 

Citation: Shedeke v. Garrett, No. A24A1303 (Ga. Ct. App. December 23, 2024)