This Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant, No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga.App. 801, 802(2), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). So viewed, the evidence shows that Walter began farming his family's land around 1949 and eventually accumulated over 600 acres of land in Grady and Decatur Counties. And as early as 1967, Walter's son, Bobby, began farming alongside his father, growing primarily corn and peanuts.

“[A] property owner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety, and an intervening criminal act by a third party generally insulates a proprietor from liability unless such criminal act was reasonably foreseeable.”(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Rest. No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 803(2), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). “In order to be reasonably foreseeable, the criminal act must be substantially similar in type to the previous criminal activities occurring on or near the premises so that a reasonable person would take ordinary precautions to protect his or her customers against the risk posed by that type of activity.”

Since "a tort claim must fail where liability is established but no damages can be shown," Blackford v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 537, 539 (S.D. Ga. 1996), it follows that negligence claims must fail where no recoverable damages have even been pled (again, plaintiffs seek no nominal or compensatory damages, doc. 26 at 5-6). See also Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga. App. 801, 806 (2013) ("Because we have found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Tequila on the negligence and gross negligence claims, Whitfield's claim for punitive damages under OCGA § 51-12-5.1 also must fail.").