Court Opinion

ID: 9607585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:00:17.235627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:40.524336
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially with Judge Johnson’s conclusion that the evidence in this case warrants summary judgment for Hoffinger on Sharpnack’s strict liability claims. The evidence shows clearly that Sharpnack’s own knowing and voluntary actions proximately caused his injuries. Therefore, as a matter of law the plaintiff cannot show an essential element of liability under OCGA § 51-1-11 (b) (1): that the product’s “condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.” That is the reason defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
While the term “assumption of the risk” has been used by the majority as well as Presiding Judge McMurray in his dissent and by the authorities cited, its use is inappropriate here and confuses the analysis. “Assumption of the risk” is a defense to a negligence claim which presumes the existence of the defendant’s negligence, but excuses same because of the plaintiff’s awareness of the dangerous condition created thereby.
Under the facts of this case; the defendant’s conduct was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and the defendant’s conduct in the manufacturing and marketing of its product is thus rendered irrelevant to the analysis.