GILREATH v. SMITH Et Al., 340 Ga. App. 265

Gilreath, a professional pet sitter with ~9 years' experience but no rooster-specific training, agreed to pet-sit for Bruce and Jodi Smith, including feeding chickens kept in a coop.
The Smiths kept a rooster named Sam, who had previously chased and struck Jodi Smith’s mother and had attacked Jodi; the Smiths did not disclose those specific prior attacks to Gilreath.
Prior to the injury, the Smiths had warned Gilreath on multiple occasions that the “rooster will attack” and advised using a garbage-can lid as protection; Gilreath admitted the warnings conveyed danger and she chose to accept the job.
While performing the April 2014 job and opening the coop door, Gilreath was attacked by Sam, suffering deep leg wounds and subsequent serious infections.
Gilreath sued under common-law premises liability (OCGA § 51-3-1), the dangerous/vicious animal statute (OCGA § 51-2-7), and a Roswell city ordinance; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Smiths based on assumption of the risk.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Gilreath had actual knowledge of the specific danger, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily exposed herself to it; no evidence showed the Smiths had superior knowledge of the specific risk of infection or greater danger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilreath assumed the risk of injury	Gilreath argues she would not have accepted the job if she had known the rooster had actually attacked people and caused serious harm	Smiths argue they warned her the rooster “will attack,” she had equal knowledge, and she voluntarily accepted the task	Court: Assumption of the risk established; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Smiths had superior knowledge making OCGA § 51-2-7 applicable	Gilreath contends Smiths knew of rooster’s vicious propensity and should be liable	Smiths contend they did not know of any greater danger (e.g., infection risk) than what they warned	Court: No evidence of superior knowledge; summary judgment for Smiths
Whether Smiths engaged in careless management of the animal	Gilreath claims asking a sitter to tend chickens including a known-attacking rooster was careless	Smiths say they kept the rooster in a coop and warned Gilreath of the risk and precautions	Court: Warnings and housing in a coop negated careless-management claim
Whether Roswell ordinance was violated	Gilreath alleges ordinance violation supported liability	Smiths note lack of proof of ordinance; plaintiff failed to introduce certified copy	Court: Claim fails for failure to prove the ordinance

Ansley v. Raczka–Long, 293 Ga. 138 (2013) (summary-judgment standard; review de novo)
Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243 (2003) (summary-judgment principles)
Bodymasters Sports Indus. v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170 (1998) (assumption-of-risk elements)
Griffiths v. Schafer, 223 Ga. App. 560 (1996) (assumption of the risk is knowledge plus intelligent acquiescence)
Lundy v. Stuhr, 185 Ga. App. 72 (1987) (warning that dog "will bite" supports assumption-of-risk/special caution)
Farmer v. Brannan Auto Parts, 231 Ga. App. 353 (1998) (prior warning can support summary judgment)
The Landings Assoc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397 (2012) (liability grounded in proprietor’s superior knowledge of perilous instrumentality)
Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (2002) (owner entitled to summary judgment absent proof of superior knowledge of animal’s temperament)
Sutton v. Sutton, 145 Ga. App. 22 (1978) (distinguishing cases where owner failed to warn invitee of known peril)
Shepard v. Streetman, 198 Ga. App. 474 (1991) (employer’s duty not to assign work creating unreasonable risk; distinguished on facts)