Assumption of risk is a complete defense: if the plaintiff knew of a specific danger, understood it, and voluntarily chose to face it, the plaintiff can’t recover from the party who created it. Georgia’s Supreme Court set the test in Muldovan v. McEachern (1999), which requires actual knowledge of the danger, an understanding and appreciation of the risk, and a voluntary exposure.
Actual knowledge is the key difference from other defenses. A plaintiff who should have seen a danger hasn’t assumed it. That’s comparative negligence, or the avoidance rule under O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7. Assumption of risk looks at what this person actually knew, though the facts can show that plainly.
| Defense | Knowledge | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Assumption of risk | Actual | Bars recovery |
| Comparative negligence, § 51-12-33 | Not required | Reduces, and bars at 50 percent |
| Avoidance, § 51-11-7 | Danger apparent or should be | Bars recovery |
| Equal knowledge, premises | Actual or constructive | Bars recovery in plain cases |
Examples are limited. A passenger who gets in a car with a visibly drunk driver has faced this argument. A signed waiver is a contract question, though related. A person who has no real choice, such as an employee ordered to do a task, may argue that exposure wasn’t voluntary.
Georgia’s SB 68 made seat belt nonuse admissible on “assumption of risk” and related issues under § 40-8-76.1(d)(1), subject to the application dates of the 2025 Acts.
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.