Opinion ID: 1253673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Assumption of risk as a matter of law

Text: SCE&G contends George assumed the risk inherent in swimming in a natural body of water and since his fault was greater than 50%, the case should not be remanded for a new trial. There are four requirements to establishing the defense of assumption of risk: (1) the plaintiff must have knowledge of the facts constituting a dangerous condition; (2) the plaintiff must know the condition is dangerous; (3) the plaintiff must appreciate the nature and extent of the danger; and (4) the plaintiff must voluntarily expose himself to the danger. Davenport, 333 S.C. at 79, 508 S.E.2d at 569. According to Cole's expert witness, the warning simply stating there was no lifeguard was insufficient notice of the danger involved. There remains a factual issue whether George was sufficiently warned of the danger to have legally assumed the risk of swimming in Lake Murray. SCE&G has not established assumption of the risk as a matter of law.