## Facts

- David R. Bowen purchased and used a gas cooking grill marketed as a “Classy Cooker,” sold by Fred Cochran and Cochran’s company.
- Bowen lit the cooker by placing rolled-up newspaper on the burner and then opening the gas valve; after it lit, he went inside his home for about 30 minutes.
- When Bowen returned, the flame was out; he opened the lid, turned off the gas, waited a few minutes for the gas odor to dissipate, and attempted to relight the cooker three times using rolled-up newspaper and opening the gas valve.
- On the third attempt, Bowen bent over to look into the cooker; a burst of flame erupted, knocking him down and causing severe burns to his hands and forearms.
- Bowen alleged defective design and/or failure to warn, including a theory that the configuration allowed gas to pool in a drip pan and ignite with a delayed burst of flame.
- Cochran presented evidence that he instructed Bowen to use a trigger lighter and to ventilate the cooker (including use of an access door) before turning on the gas, and that Bowen’s prior experience with similar cookers indicated awareness of ventilation requirements.
- Defendants asserted affirmative defenses including assumption of the risk and contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence demanded a directed verdict for plaintiffs on defendants’ assumption-of-risk defense.
2. Whether the evidence demanded a directed verdict for plaintiffs on defendants’ contributory-negligence defense.
3. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on assumption of risk and contributory negligence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the defense verdict.
- The trial court properly denied directed verdict motions on assumption of risk and contributory negligence because the evidence and reasonable inferences did not demand findings for plaintiffs.
- The trial court properly instructed the jury on both defenses because the evidence authorized the charges.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is appropriate only when there is no conflict in material evidence and the evidence, with all reasonable inferences, demands a particular result.
- Assumption of risk and contributory negligence are generally jury questions unless the case is plain, palpable, and undisputed such that reasonable minds could not differ.
- Assumption of risk requires evidence that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily exposed himself to it.
- Jury instructions on affirmative defenses are proper when supported by some evidence from which a jury could find the defense established.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained evidence from which reasonable jurors could find that Bowen knew of and voluntarily encountered the danger or failed to exercise ordinary care in relighting and inspecting the cooker, the trial court correctly denied directed verdicts and properly charged the jury on assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and the defense verdict was affirmed.


Bowen v. Cochran, 252 Ga. App. 457, 556 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)