## Facts

- Steven Kane, age nine, was injured when he fell while attempting to climb playground equipment (“Infant Maze”) in a Gwinnett County, Georgia public park.
- The Infant Maze was designed for toddlers (approximately 18 months to 3 years), consisted of low vertical panels with cutouts and handholds, and included a pitched roof with a peak roughly seven feet high.
- The playground area included equipment for children of all ages; older children were known to climb and sit on top of the Infant Maze, including on the day of the incident.
- Steven acknowledged the equipment was obviously intended for “little kids,” believed his mother would likely disapprove of him climbing it, and had been warned by his mother not to play on it because climbing it was dangerous for older children.
- The Kanes sued the manufacturer, Landscape Structures, Inc., alleging negligent design and failure to warn regarding dangers associated with climbing the equipment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Landscape Structures based on assumption of risk, and the Kanes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether undisputed evidence showed that a nine-year-old plaintiff actually understood and appreciated the obvious risk of falling associated with climbing to a high place and voluntarily chose to encounter it, establishing assumption of risk as a matter of law.
2. Whether a playground equipment manufacturer has a duty to redesign or warn against an obvious risk—falling from height—when the injured child recognized and voluntarily encountered that risk.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for Landscape Structures.
- The court held that Steven assumed the risk because he appreciated the obvious danger of falling when climbing to a high place and voluntarily chose to climb anyway.
- The court concluded that, given the obviousness of the hazard and Steven’s acknowledged awareness, the negligent design and failure-to-warn claims failed as a matter of law.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Kanes, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact on the elements of assumption of risk.

## Legal Principles

- Assumption of risk is a complete defense when the plaintiff (1) had actual knowledge of the danger, (2) understood and appreciated the risk, and (3) voluntarily exposed himself to it.
- A child may assume the risk as a matter of law when undisputed evidence shows the child appreciated an obvious danger and voluntarily chose to face it.
- A manufacturer generally has no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious to the ordinary user, including hazards commonly understood by children of the plaintiff’s age.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record conclusively establishes the defense and the nonmovant fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for the playground equipment manufacturer because the nine-year-old plaintiff knew the equipment was not intended for him, had been warned against climbing it, appreciated the obvious risk of falling from a height, and voluntarily chose to encounter that risk, defeating negligent design and failure-to-warn claims.


Kane v. Landscape Structures, Inc., 309 Ga. App. 14, 709 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)