Assumption of the Risk Defense

Assumption of the risk is a defense that can be raised in any case where there is evidence that the Plaintiff (the victim) had knowledge of the danger that hurt them. It shows up in cases where the victim has a reason to know that where they are or what they are doing is risky. The idea generally is, if you knew it was dangerous and you still participated, you should not be able to sue when the risk is what hurt you.

To beat the case, the Defense needs to show:
  • the plaintiff actually knew about the specific danger, 
  • due to age or sobriety understood the risks, 
  • voluntarily exposed themselves to the danger. 
Liles v. Innerwork, Inc., 279 Ga. App. 352 (2006). 

The rule was made into law in O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7.  “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant's negligence, he is not entitled to recover. In other cases, the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained.”
Assumption of the risk will get a case thrown out even where the Defendant acted recklessly and was negligent to a gross degree. 

Case Examples

Landings Association, Inc. v. Williams, 309 Ga App. 321 (June 18, 2012).
83 year old woman house sitting at a fancy neighborhood on on a golf course knew about alligators in the area and assumed the risk of injury walking in the back yard. Remember the issue is whether the defendant had any duty to the Plaintiff. Here the Supreme Court focused on equal knowledge. 

White v. Georgia Power Co., 265 Ga. App. 664 (2004) In this case a 9 and 12 year old boy went swimming in the Oconee River downstream from a power plant and drowned. The Court held “the danger of drowning in a body of water is an apparent, open danger, the knowledge of which is common to all." 

Generally speaking, the danger of fire, water and heights are known to all ages and these cases are often thrown out by the Court even though the legal standard is "plain and palpable." "The fear of water and of drowning is instinctively present in young children as a matter of law." McCall v. McCallie, 48 Ga. App. 99, 171 S.E. 843 (1933)

Child Assumes the Risk of Being Burned

In Taylor et al. v. McGraw et al., 2014 WL 2766731 (Ga. App. A14A0453) (2014), a 13 year old was deemed to have assumed the risk of being burned when they stook to close to a campfire. 

Assuming the Risk of a Dog Bite

We get a lot of calls from people where they were bitten while trying to separate their dog from an another dog attacking it. In most cases the Court will throw the case out. Consider what the Court did in Lundy v. Stuhr, 185 Ga. App. 72 (1987),  where a kennel employee was deemed to have assumed the risk of a bite when they had been warned that a dog "will bite" and the employee still went into the cage and held their arm out as the dog approached.

Assuming the Risk of Getting in a Car with a Drunk Driver

We have handled a number of cases where the passenger is injured in a crash and their driver is drunk. The devil is in the details in these cases but it boils down to this; can the defense show that the passenger knew the driver was impaired or not? If they can show that because they were going drink for drink at the bar, it is a problematic case. Although a judge won't throw the case out, there is a good chance that the jury is going to. If there is evidence that the driver was somewhere else or unknown to the victim, then a jury is more likely to make a fair award for the injury as well as return a punitive damages verdict.
Client Reviews
My wife and I were hit by a tractor trailer in 2014. After extensive research online, we were deeply impressed with the various reviews we read on Google and Avvo and chose Chris to represent us. We could not have a made a better decision. Chris and his firm treated us like we were their only clients, soothed our worries, and instantly gained our trust. Chris settled both of our cases for more than we expected. James
A co-worker of my wife recommended Chris to us. At the very beginning Chris showed that he cared and his knowledge is priceless. Going through this process can be aggravating but Chris did a great job guiding me through this and was always available to answer my questions. Chris fought to get what I deserved even though at times I wanted to give up. Tracy
I want to express my deepest sense of gratitude and appreciation to Attorney Chris Simon & Attorney Chris Carsten, for all the hard work that they put forth into my case (car accident filed after being hit by drunk driver). Their attention to detail and professionalism far surpasses their firm's reputation. Because of their diligence and dedication to their craft, they were able to bring my case to a successful close, one that I could live with. You will not find a better team for your case. Should I have a need for their services again in the future, or know of anyone looking for a top notch Auto Accident Law Firm, I would not hesitate to recommend them!!!! Elle
Wow...Chris is a very good attorney. Me and my son was in a very bad car accident an I was clueless on how to handle the situation. It's very hard to find an attorney who allows you to contact them personally instead of you contacting their asst. I was told that I didn't have a case because the hosiptal put a lien on my acct. Chris prove different and I was able to file my case with the insurance company. The process was very quickly and Im glad I selected the right attorney..Thanks Chris A Car Accident client
Chris is a great lawyer and the most people friendly attorney I have ever delt with. He handled my case with great attention to detail and did so in a very short period of time. He is very consice, efficient, patient and understanding. He has a strong passion for what he does and he does it well. I recommend Chris Simon as legal representation for anyone who has suffreed damages or a loss at the negligence of others. He really cares about you and your case. A Car Accident client