Thomas Fuller v. William McCormick
340 Ga. App. 636
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William McCormick worked for Full Stride Farm from 1999–2013 and regularly operated a Bobcat without incident; the Bobcat displayed warning signs about carrying loads low and avoiding steep slopes.
- On Sept. 8, 2012, McCormick positioned a dump truck above him on a slope, fully extended the Bobcat arm 10–12 feet to load rock into the truck, and had rocks protruding above the bucket rim.
- As he lifted the overloaded bucket, it struck the truck and a rock fell out, striking McCormick’s knee; he required knee replacement surgery and has chronic pain.
- McCormick sued the Fullers alleging negligence, failure to train/supervise/maintain, vicarious liability, and his wife asserted loss of consortium.
- The trial court denied the Fullers’ summary judgment motions; the Fullers obtained interlocutory review, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding McCormick assumed the risk as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCormick assumed the risk so as to bar recovery | McCormick said he lacked specific knowledge the rocks could fall and pointed to lack of training; affidavit denies knowledge of the particular risk | Fullers argued McCormick had actual, subjective knowledge of the danger and voluntarily exposed himself (ignored warnings, chose truck position, overloaded bucket) | Court: Assumption of risk established as matter of law; summary judgment for Fullers granted |
| Whether failure to train by employer is actionable despite assumption of risk | McCormick asserted the Fullers breached duty to train him on Bobcat use | Fullers conceded lack of formal training but argued assumption of risk still bars recovery | Court: Even if breach occurred, assumption of risk precludes recovery — training claim fails as a matter of law |
| Wife’s loss of consortium claim | Dependent on husband’s recovery | Fullers: If husband cannot recover, consortium claim fails | Court: Dismissed wife’s claim because husband assumed the risk and cannot recover |
| Thomas Fuller’s alternate defenses (duty, causation, worker’s role) | McCormick argued defendants’ failure to train/certain safety measures (e.g., screen) caused injury | Thomas argued no duty, no causation, and plaintiff responsible for his own safety | Court: Declined to reach most alternate arguments after assumption-of-risk holding; dissent would have rejected summary judgment on assumption-of-risk and addressed these defenses on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kouacs v. Cornerstone Nat. Ins. Co., 318 Ga. App. 99 (de novo review standard on summary judgment)
- Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609 (employer duty to train employees on equipment)
- Vaughn v. Pleasent, 266 Ga. 862 (assumption of risk bars negligence recovery)
- Sapp v. Effingham County Bd. of Ed., 200 Ga. App. 695 (assumption of risk as complete defense)
- Fowler v. Alpharetta Family Skate Center, 268 Ga. App. 329 (summary judgment on assumption of risk in plain, palpable, indisputable cases)
- Muldovan v. McEachern, 271 Ga. 805 (subjective knowledge requirement for assumption of risk)
- Desai v. Silver Dollar City, 229 Ga. App. 160 (warning signs and obvious dangers support summary judgment)
- Kroger Co. v. Williams, 257 Ga. App. 833 (plaintiff must know the specific risk that causes injury)
- Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (Prophecy rule on disregarding contradictory affidavit testimony)
- Sones v. Real Estate Dev. Group, 270 Ga. App. 507 (affirming summary judgment based on assumption of risk in workplace context)