Title: Kelton v. Gulf States Steel, Inc.
Citation: 575 So. 2d 1054
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 11, 1991

575 So. 2d 1054 (1991)
Louis D. KELTON and Gail Kelton
v.
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
89-1465.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 11, 1991.
Michael L. Roberts, Larry H. Keener and Gregory S. Cusimano of Floyd, Keener, Cusimano &amp; Roberts, Gadsden, for appellants.
James C. Inzer, Jr. of Inzer, Suttle, Swann &amp; Stivender, Gadsden, for appellee.
JONES, Justice.
Plaintiffs, Louis D. Kelton and his wife Gail Kelton, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Gulf States Steel, Inc.[1]
On October 28, 1986, Kelton, on his first day as an employee of Birmingham Industrial Painting Company ("BIPC"), was seriously injured when a section of grating in a walkway gave way under his weight, causing him to fall approximately 26 feet to the floor below. BIPC had contracted with Gulf States to furnish all labor and equipment used to replace the corrugated sheeting at the "regeneration plant."[2]
Gulf States' motion for summary judgment, which was grounded on the affirmative defense of assumption of risk, was supported by the following: 1) the deposition of Louis Kelton, stating that, although he had been advised that the walkways could be "rotten," they looked "O.K." to *1055 him; and 2) an affidavit of a co-employee of Kelton, Jerry Garmany, which stated, in part, as follows:
In opposition to Gulf States' motion for summary judgment, Kelton offered: 1) all evidentiary material of record; and 2) an affidavit of expert witness John Clement, stating the opinion that Kelton, under the circumstances, acted within standards of care applicable to iron workers.
With this factual background, we turn to the legal issue of the case; i.e., whether Kelton, as a matter of law, assumed the risks for his injuries and thus is barred from recovery. The affirmative defense of assumption of risk is narrowly confined and is restricted by two requirements: 1) knowledge and appreciation by the plaintiff of the danger he is incurring; and 2) voluntary consent to bear that risk. Kemp v. Jackson, 274 Ala. 29, 145 So. 2d 187 (1962); W. Prosser &amp; P. Keeton, Prosser &amp; Keeton on Torts § 68 (5th ed. 1984).
We conclude that there exists a question of fact as to whether Kelton, as a first-day employee, possessed the requisite appreciation of the risk and whether his actions, under the circumstances, amounted to a voluntary consent to bear the risk. Where, as here, the only viable options available to the injured employee were to remain on the job and try to avoid injury or to leave the employment and thus totally avoid the risk, the resolution of the question whether Kelton had assumed the risk is not subject to summary disposition, as a matter of law. Just as the resolution of the ultimate issue of Gulf States' liability is one for the jury's determination, so is the resolution of the affirmative defense of assumption of risk.[3] Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
[1]  Gail Kelton has a derivative claim for loss of consortium. Because her claim is dependent upon Louis Kelton's claim, the remainder of this opinion will refer only to Louis Kelton.
[2]  The appellee's brief contains a detailed description of the location of the plant where the accident in question occurred: "Within the steel plant premises is an area and building designated as `regeneration plant' which plant has a process involved in the recapturing of acid used in the steel processes so that the acid can be reused in the working of steel. The regeneration plant had steel walkways with iron and steel braces and fixtures within the regeneration plant and had three levels ... within the regeneration building. The recapture of acid, acid fumes and other residue of the recapturing process had very [corrosive] effects on the steel within the regeneration plant which was composed of walkways, braces and so forth and ... the walkways within the regeneration plant were in bad condition.... As a result of this deterioration, Gulf States was involved in an ongoing repairing process for the repair of the walkways and other fixtures within the regeneration plant which required replacement of various portions of the regeneration plant due to the corrosive effect of the acid on the steel."
[3]  Compare our holding in Armstrong v. Georgia Marble Co., 575 So. 2d 1051 (Ala.1991), in which we affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant because an employee of the defendant had notified the vice president and co-owner of the plaintiff's employer of a potentially dangerous condition on the premises, thereby discharging its duty to give "sufficient warning" to a business invitee of a dangerous condition.