Court Opinion

ID: 9576933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:30:06.376369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:44.152449
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially because I believe that the existence of assumption of risk is ordinarily a jury question, and it is especially so when that doctrine is being applied to young children. In Jackson v. Young, 125 Ga. App. 342, 343-344 (187 SE2d 564) (1972), cited by the majority, we held, “ ‘There is no presumption of law that a child between *634the ages of seven and fourteen did or did not exercise due care, or does or does not have sufficient capacity to recognize danger or observe due care.’ Brewer v. Gittings, 102 Ga. App. 367 (4) (116 SE2d 500). As was well said by Judge Bell in this controlling authority (p. 374): Tt seems clear from the Georgia cases that the question of capacity or lack of capacity to be contributorily negligent in the case of children between the ages of seven and fourteen is a subjective one which necessarily depends in each situation upon the particular child’s mental and physical capacity. Thus, there is no presumption that the child did or did not exercise due care or does or does not have sufficient capacity to recognize danger or to observe due care. See Simmons v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 46 Ga. App. 93 (d) (166 SE 666); Southern R. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1026, 1037 (53 SE 692, 6 LRA (NS) 283, 4 AC 675). Since the question of capacity is an individual one in each of the cases involving children between seven and fourteen years of age, the jury must first find that the particular child had the capacity required and then must decide whether or not the child exercised it. As it was stated in Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Rylee, 87 Ga. 491, 495 (13 SE 584, 13 LRA 634), “The better rule would be for the jury to deal with each case upon its own facts, unhampered by presumptions of law either for or against the competency of the child.” ’ ”
However, in Abee v. Stone Mountain Mem. Assn., 252 Ga. 465, 466 (314 SE2d 444) (1984), affirming 169 Ga. App. 167 (312 SE2d 142) (1983), our Supreme Court held that, in some cases, the obviousness of the danger causing injury allows a judge to determine that a minor below the age of 14 assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law. I agree with Justice Gregory, who, in his dissent, stated that he felt this issue should be resolved by a jury.
It is true that the obviousness of the danger may support a judgment, as a matter of law, when dealing with an adult, because such adult’s capacity to comprehend and appreciate the danger may be presumed. No such presumption may be applied when dealing with a child between the ages of seven and fourteen. With such children, the child’s capacity to recognize danger or observe due care is a question of fact that must be determined in each case, regardless of the obviousness of the danger. The obviousness of the danger, no matter how evident, cannot establish the ability of the child to appreciate it. The distinction between a child and an adult is based upon the child’s reduced ability to appreciate the danger, not its ability to see it. Each child has a different mental capacity and level of maturity, and exactly what that capacity is in each case should be a question for the jury, not the trial judge.
In applying the law of assumption of risk to the present facts, it is clear that the rocky cliff was an open and obvious danger of which *635the child was aware. Whether the child appreciated such obvious danger is a question of fact for a jury to determine. In every case, each child approaching that cliff will have a different capacity to comprehend and appreciate the danger of falling into the abyss. The flaw in our Supreme Court’s holding in Abee is demonstrated by the fact that it authorizes a majority opinion that would have been no different in substance had the plaintiff been an adult.
Decided February 4, 1998
Reconsideration denied February 18, 1998
King & Croft, F. Carlton King, Jr., Thomas A. Croft, for appellants.
Freeman, Mathis & Gary, Theodore Freeman, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, William T. Mitchell, Shivers & Associates, Wayne C. Wilson,' Dan J. Colley, for appellee.
While our Supreme Court’s opinion on this issue authorizes the majority’s holding, I believe that this rule is unsound because it ignores the issue of the child’s capacity to comprehend and appreciate the subject danger, with the result that the same standard is applied to such children as to adults.
According to W. Prosser, Law of Torts, 4th ed., p. 440, § 68 (1971), “[i]n its simplest and primary sense, assumption of risk means that the plaintiff, in advance, has given his consent to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone.” Therefore, for assumption of risk to apply, it must be shown that the plaintiff knew or should have known of a potential danger and appreciated it to the extent that he may be deemed to have made the decision to voluntarily face it.