In SMG Construction Services, LLC v. Cook, No. S25G0389, 2025 WL 2918955, (Ga. Oct. 15, 2025), the Georgia Supreme Court recently vacated the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals and remanded the case based on an independent contractor’s actual knowledge of a hazard. Plaintiff Daniel Cook (“Mr. Cook”) was injured working on a construction site and fell from a ledge. Mr. Cook filed suit against the owner for the fall. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals had conflated the concept of actual knowledge and constructive knowledge in finding Mr. Cook did not have actual knowledge of the exposed ledge, only constructive knowledge.

The dispute arose from Mr. Cook’s installation of cabinetry in a second-story bathroom of a residential construction project at a property owned by SMG Constructive Services (“SMG”). Mr. Cook was straightening an air hose while walking backward toward an exposed ledge located directly outside the second-story bathroom. Mr. Cook fell backward over the ledge. Mr. Cook brought suit against SMG alleging SMG failed to maintain a safe premises.

SMG moved for summary judgment, highlighting Mr. Cook’s own deposition testimony wherein Mr. Cook admitted he not only knew the ledge was exposed but was aware there were no guardrails in place. With this combination of factors and Mr. Cook’s admission he could see the ledge drop off only one to two steps from the bathroom, the trial court determined Mr. Cook had actual knowledge of the hazardous ledge, preempting any further inquiry into SMG’s liability and granting summary judgment. Cook, 2025 WL 2918955 at *2.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, reasoning Mr. Cook’s misapprehension of the proximity of the balcony’s edge to his work area created a material question of fact as to his actual knowledge. Cook v. SMG Constr. Servs., LLC, 373 Ga. App. 354 (2024). The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Civil Appeals and found his testimony established his actual knowledge of the dangerous construction.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the doctrine that actual knowledge of a hazardous condition is fatal to such claims. This decision should prompt more intensive fact inquiries in cases where certain conditions may impede a plaintiff’s clear perception of a known hazard on a construction site.