Hi

You must have insurance despite your description of the property.

Here is a summary of the reasons for the insurance per GA law

Introduction

Premises liability involves claims by an individual who
is injured on the property of another. The injured party may bring a claim
against the owner of the property or the person or entity occupying or
controlling the property at the time of the injury. Liability for the claimant's
injury is generally the same whether the injured party brings an action against
an owner or an occupier. The main exception to this rule is that a landlord who
has fully parted with possession and the right to possession is subject to a
special statutory provision which is fully discussed in the section entitled
[Landlord Liability]. For the
purposes of discussion, the owner or occupier will be referred to as the
"owner," and the person injured will be referred to as the "claimant."

The
owner is not liable for a claimant's injury simply by virtue of the injury
occurring on the owner's premises. The claimant must prove that the owner was
negligent, and that the owner's Negligence caused the claimant's injury. The
purpose of this text is to compare and contrast scenarios in which a jury must
decide the owner's liability for the claimant's injuries with situations where
the owner has no liability as a matter of law. In order to make this analysis,
it is important to first have a basic understanding of the litigation process
and summary judgment procedures.

After a complaint is filed by the claimant, the parties
to the lawsuit engage in discovery which includes the taking of depositions of
the parties, witnesses and experts and exchanging documentation with the
opposing side. The defendant owner through counsel will usually file a motion
for summary judgment at the close of discovery. The thrust of this motion is
that even considering all the evidence gathered during the discovery process and
viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the claimant, the claimant
cannot as a matter of law support a claim against the owner. By filing the
motion, the owner has the chance of obtaining a dismissal of the claimant's
action without incurring the additional cost and expense of trial. For the
purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court assumes that the
claimant's version of events is correct, and the motion must be denied if there
is any genuine issue of material fact as to the owner's liability. Although the
owner has the burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment, there are
times when he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A. CONDITIONS ON THE
PREMISES

1.
Status of Claimant

Who
is the claimant? This question is the starting point of any analysis of a claim
for a defective or hazardous condition on the premises. Georgia law has divided
claimants into three separate categories: invitees, licensees and trespassers.
An invitee is one who is induced by express or implied invitation to come onto
an owner's property. The owner must exercise ordinary care in keeping the
premises and approaches safe for the invitee. The typical invitee is a customer
at a store but also includes an individual who is employed by the owner to
perform work on the property or members of an organization participating in a
meeting on the owner's property.

A
licensee is one who is neither a customer, a servant nor a trespasser, is not in
contractual relations with the owner of the premises and is permitted to come
onto the owner's land for his own
interests, convenience or gratification. A licensee is sometimes defined as a
"social guest," a person who visits the property for the purposes of friendship
and socialization. A licensee includes an insurance salesman making a sales
call, an employer proceeding onto the owner's property to offer the owner a job,
a fireman battling a blaze, and a security guard entering a warehouse in
response to a burglar alarm. An invitee can lose his status and become a
licensee if he ventures outside the boundaries of his invitation such as when a
customer at a restaurant walks into a roped off area in the parking lot, returns
to a restaurant after hours of operation, or opens a private cabinet in a
restroom. A volunteer who performs work on the property without a request from
the owner is a mere licensee even if the work benefits the owner.

An
owner owes a licensee a duty to refrain from wantonly and recklessly exposing
him to hidden perils. An owner can only be held liable to a licensee if he knows
or has reason to know of a dangerous condition and fails to take reasonable
steps to correct it or warn the licensee of the condition. This lesser duty
exists as long as the licensee's actual presence on the property is not realized
by the owner. Once a licensee's presence on the property is made known to the
owner, the owner must exercise the same care toward the licensee as owed to an
invitee, and the distinction between the duty owed to the licensee and the
invitee ceases to exist.

A
trespasser is one who, intentionally or by mistake, enters upon another's
property without permission. An owner owes a trespasser the duty not to
willfully or wantonly injure him. A child's status as a trespasser, licensee or
invitee is not determined by the child's age or his capacity, and as such, the
owner's duty to a child is not affected by the child's lack of maturity. The
child's age is relevant in determining if the child can appreciate a danger and
may expose an owner to greater liability in having to anticipate a trespassing
child's lack of understanding of a dangerous condition. This idea is the central
thrust of the [Attractive Nuisance]
doctrine which defines an owners liability for allowing children access to
certain hazards.

Sometimes the battle in a premises liability case is won
by making a determination of the status of the claimant. Because there is a
significant difference between a duty owed to an invitee and a licensee, an
owner can sometimes prevail by lowering the status of the claimant. Georgia
courts apply the "business relations" test in determining if a claimant is an
invitee or licensee. The general test is whether or not the injured person at
the time of the injury had present business relations with the owner of the
premises which would render his presence of mutual aid to both or whether his
presence on the premises was for his own convenience, or he had business with
individuals other than the owner of the premises. If the relationship solely
benefits the injured person, he can at most be a licensee.

7.
Attractive Nuisance

Recognizing that children are almost magically drawn to
certain man-made hazards such as machinery and railroad turntables, courts have
created a legal fiction known as the attractive nuisance doctrine in an effort
to force an owner to protect children from their own curiosity. Under this
theory, an owner is potentially liable for injuries caused to a [Trespassing Child] if the injuries were
caused by a dangerous man-made instrumentality or machinery which naturally
attracts young children. The central idea behind this doctrine is that the owner
should anticipate that a child would come onto the property because of the
interesting nature of the machinery, and the owner should take precautions such
as erecting a fence or other barrier to keep children away from the harm.

Georgia courts have been very cautious about applying
this doctrine and have limited its use by adopting a five-part test for an
owner's liability for a man-made condition. Under Georgia law, an owner of land
is liable for physical harm caused by an artificial condition upon the land
if:

(1)
the place where the condition exists is one upon which the owner knows or has
reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and

(2)
the condition is one of which the owner knows or has reason to know and which he
realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious
bodily injury to such children, and

(3)
the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the
risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made
dangerous by it, and

(4)
the utility to the owner of maintaining the condition and the burden of
eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children
involved, and

(5)
the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise
to protect the children.

There must be evidence to
support all five conditions, or the owner is entitled to summary judgment.
Furthermore, the attractive nuisance doctrine is not applicable to a child who
is a guest on the owner's property since the child is not a trespasser.

Under
Georgia law, this doctrine does not apply to any natural condition on the
property such as a pond or an embankment. It also does not generally apply to
dangers presented by fire, falling from heights, or water hazards because
children normally understand and appreciate the hazard presented by these
elements. However, an issue for trial exists as to whether a conveyor belt in a
packing shed is an attractive nuisance to children of migrant farm workers, and
whether an unfenced swimming pool three blocks from an elementary school
presents an attractive nuisance for nearby children.

Please press 3 or 4 or 5 below so that I may get credit for assisting you.

Please do NOT press 1 or 2 since that will result in a negative rating for me
which you may not have intended. If you want further information or

clarification, just ask before you give a rating.

I ask you to be fair in your rating. For instance, in these actual
examples, the expert should not have received a negative rating:

1. A customer says "I ALREADY KNEW
THAT".....but the expert didn't know what the customer knew or didn't know.

2. A customer wants to hear "YES YOU
CAN".....but the certified legal expert says "LEGALLY NO YOU
CAN'T".

3. The answer is short, but ACCURATE. A customer
simply wants a longer answer.

Thank you for reading this and for your consideration.
I'm always ready to help further.

rich