When Does Assumption of Risk Bar a Claim in Georgia?
On this page
When the defendant proves all three elements: “(1) actual knowledge of the danger; (2) understanding and appreciation of the risks associated with the danger; and (3) voluntary exposure to those risks”, as the Court of Appeals restated them in Cook v. SMG Construction Services, LLC (2026), relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vaughn v. Pleasent (1996). If all three are established, the defense bars recovery on the negligence claim. The standard is subjective, measured by what this plaintiff knew and chose, and except in plain and undisputed cases the jury decides it.
Knowledge, appreciation, and voluntary exposure
| Element | What it requires | Example from the cases |
|---|---|---|
| Actual knowledge | Knowledge of the specific hazard, not just general awareness that a place or activity can be dangerous | In SMG Construction Services, LLC v. Cook (2025), the Supreme Court held that a cabinet installer had actual knowledge, as a matter of law, of the unguarded balcony ledge he later fell from |
| Understanding and appreciation | Understanding the risks the danger carries | On remand, the Court of Appeals found this element met, quoting an earlier case: "[n]o danger is more commonly realized and risk appreciated … than that of falling" |
| Voluntary exposure | "Exposure to the known risk must be voluntary, the result of a deliberate choice", quoting Bass Custom Landscapes v. Cunard (2002) | A jury question remained on whether the installer deliberately chose to put himself in a position of imminent danger |
Cook v. SMG: knowledge is not enough
Daniel Cook, an independent contractor, was installing cabinetry in a second-floor bathroom of a house under construction. The bathroom was not near the interior balcony overlooking the foyer, which had no guardrail. Drywall dust, overspray, poor lighting, and lack of visual contrast affected his ability to perceive where the edge was. While straightening an air hose, he shuffled backward, stepped off the edge, and fell to the first floor.
The Supreme Court held that Cook had actual knowledge of the ledge but sent the case back, because “knowledge is only one element of the affirmative defenses raised in SMG’s motion for summary judgment and ruled on by the trial court”. On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the owner. It relied on these rules from earlier decisions:
- The standard “is a subjective one, geared to the particular plaintiff and his situation, rather than that of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence”, quoting Muldovan v. McEachern (1999).
- “An employee’s freedom of choice can be restricted by the circumstances under which he works and the coercion of seeking to remain employed”, quoting York v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta (1995).
- “Except in plain, palpable and undisputed cases where reasonable minds cannot differ as to the conclusions to be reached, the jury must determine” whether a claimant used ordinary care or assumed the risk, quoting King v. Georgia Department of Corrections (2018).
One judge dissented.
Express assumption: releases
A signed release or exculpatory agreement is a written assumption of risk. Georgia decisions enforce such agreements against ordinary negligence but not against gross negligence or wilful or wanton conduct; see the difference between ordinary and gross negligence.
How it differs from comparative fault
Comparative fault reduces damages by the plaintiff’s percentage and bars recovery at 50 percent or more (§ 51-12-33(a), (g)); see how the 50 percent comparative fault rule works. Assumption of risk, when proved, bars the claim without a percentage. Defendants can raise both, as SMG did with assumption of risk and voluntary negligence in Cook.
Facts that decide the defense
- Exactly what the injured person knew about the specific hazard before the injury.
- Conditions that affected what the person could see or perceive at the moment.
- Whether the person had a real choice, including job pressures.
- Any signed release, and whether the claim alleges gross negligence or wilful conduct.
Sources
- Cook v. SMG Construction Services, LLC, No. A24A0886 (Ga. Ct. App. June 24, 2026)
- SMG Construction Services, LLC v. Cook, 322 Ga. 819 (2025)
- O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 (text as published March 2024).
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.