Assumption of risk in a Georgia injury case is a defense built on the idea that a person who knowingly and voluntarily accepted a known danger may be limited in recovering for the resulting harm. The defense centers on the injured person’s awareness and choice.
It rests on knowledge of the risk. The defense generally requires that the injured person actually knew of the specific danger involved, not merely a general hazard. A fan seated just past the dugout along the foul line, where stray balls regularly land, understood the particular risk in a way a passerby would not.
It requires a voluntary choice. Beyond knowledge, the person must have chosen freely to encounter the risk, so someone pushed into danger has not assumed it. The freedom of the choice is as central as the awareness behind it.
It differs from comparative fault. Assumption of risk focuses on the knowing acceptance of a specific danger, which is narrower than the broad weighing of carelessness under comparative negligence. The two address fault in different ways.
As a defense, it turns on knowledge of the risk, a voluntary choice, and its difference from comparative fault. Because it demands actual knowledge of the specific risk rather than a general awareness that some danger existed, it tends to apply in narrow settings where a person plainly understood and embraced the very hazard that caused the harm.