## Facts

- Johnell Hillman, Jr., was injured when a forklift malfunctioned and threw him about 20 feet onto a concrete floor.
- Carlton Company maintained the forklift and inspected it on the morning of the accident, certifying it as ready for use.
- Hillman alleged negligent maintenance: Carlton failed to adjust anchor devices controlling lift chains, allowing repeated impact that weakened stop bolts; Carlton had replaced multiple stop bolts over time.
- Hillman had often climbed onto the forklift’s forks at work despite posted warnings prohibiting riding on the forks.
- On the day of the accident, Hillman stood in stacked boxes placed on the forks so the operator could raise him to measure the warehouse ceiling.
- As the forks approached maximum height, stop bolts failed; the forks exceeded peak height, carriage rollers disengaged from the mast channel, the forks tilted downward, and Hillman and the boxes were dumped to the floor.
- Hillman had not previously seen a forklift malfunction in this manner.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant established, as a matter of law, that Hillman assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily riding on the forklift’s forks despite posted warnings.
2. Whether Hillman’s awareness of the general danger of riding forklift forks conclusively showed actual knowledge and appreciation of the specific risk of a maintenance-related mechanical failure that caused the dumping incident.

## Decision

- The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for Carlton.
- The court held the evidence did not conclusively establish that Hillman had actual knowledge and appreciation of the particular danger that caused the injury: a latent, maintenance-related malfunction.
- Whether Hillman assumed the risk of the specific mechanical failure was a jury question.

## Legal Principles

- Assumption of risk requires proof that the plaintiff (1) had actual knowledge of the danger, (2) understood and appreciated the risk, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself to it.
- The defense is danger-specific: awareness of a general hazard does not equal knowledge of a distinct, injury-producing risk.
- Posted warnings and prior disregard of safety instructions may show knowledge of an obvious risk (e.g., falling), but do not necessarily prove knowledge of a hidden mechanical defect.
- On summary judgment, evidence is construed in favor of the non-movant; the defendant must conclusively establish each element of the affirmative defense.

## Conclusion

Because the record supported that Hillman knowingly accepted the general risk of riding elevated forks but did not conclusively show he knew of and appreciated the specific risk of a maintenance-related forklift failure that would dump him, summary judgment on assumption-of-risk grounds was improper and the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Hillman v. Carlton Co., 240 Ga. App. 432, 522 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)