Background
Doris Campbell went to Susan Taylor’s home after her disabled mother called in distress and said that Clinton Taylor, her boyfriend, had attacked her. Campbell knew Clinton had previously been violent toward her mother. When Campbell arrived, she saw Clinton preventing her mother from leaving.
Campbell pounded on the door and began calling 911. Clinton opened a patio door, grabbed her by the throat, pushed her onto a concrete patio, and tackled her, seriously injuring her leg. Campbell sued Clinton and Susan for negligence. After Susan died, Kaye E. Smith, administrator of Susan’s estate, was substituted as defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to Susan’s estate on assumption-of-risk grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the undisputed evidence showed Campbell knew Clinton was violent, knew he was then attacking and detaining her mother, and voluntarily chose to intervene. Under Georgia precedent, a person who deliberately joins an ongoing altercation assumes the risk of injury where the danger is plain and apparent.
Campbell’s argument that Clinton had never attacked her personally did not create a factual dispute over her appreciation of the relevant risk. The court also rejected her reliance on the sudden-emergency doctrine because she had time to drive across town and speak with a friend before arriving, rather than being forced to make an immediate decision without time for thought. The court did not reach the alternative intervening-criminal-act argument.
Key Takeaways
- Assumption of risk may be decided on summary judgment when the plaintiff’s knowledge of the specific danger is plain, palpable, and undisputed.
- Knowledge that a violent person is attacking and restraining another can establish awareness of the risk of intervening, even if that person had not previously attacked the plaintiff.
- The sudden-emergency doctrine did not apply where Campbell had time to travel to the scene and consider her response.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Georgia’s assumption-of-risk doctrine to a bystander who intervenes in an ongoing violent confrontation. It underscores that the pertinent risk is not limited to a prediction of the precise injury or a prior attack on the plaintiff.
The opinion also distinguishes a sudden-emergency argument from the rescue doctrine. Although counsel referred to rescue at oral argument, the court declined to consider that doctrine because Campbell had not raised it below or in her appellate briefs.