Gwyneth Williams, then 83, was housesitting for her daughter and son-in-law at The Landings, a planned residential development with a golf course located on Skidaway Island off the Georgia coast. Before The Landings was developed, the land within and surrounding its boundaries was largely marsh, where indigenous alligators lived and thrived. To develop the property, The Landings entities installed a lagoon system that allowed enough drainage to create an area suitable for a residential development. After the project was completed in the 1970s, the indigenous alligators began to move in and out of The Landings through its lagoon systems. Although alligators inhabited the area, no person had ever been attacked until the night of October 5, 2007, when Mrs. Williams went for a walk near one of the lagoons close to her daughter's home sometime after 6:00 p.m. The following morning, Mrs. Williams's body was found floating in the lagoon. Williams's right foot and both forearms had been bitten off. Later, an eight-foot alligator was caught in the same lagoon, and, after the alligator was killed, parts of Williams's body were found in its stomach. Williams's family filed suit against The Landings for negligence in developing and operating the area. The Landings countered with a defense of contributory negligencethat Mrs. Williams assumed the risk of walking alone among the lagoons at night. The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment in part. The court of appeals reversed in part, and the parties appealed. JUDICIAL OPINION MELTON, Justice The record shows that, prior to the attack, Williams was aware that the property was inhabited by alligators. Williams' son-in-law testified that, on at least one occasion, he was driving with Williams on property in The Landings when he stopped the car to allow Williams to look at an alligator. Williams' son-in-law also testified that Williams was, in fact, aware that there were alligators in the lagoons at The Landings and that he believed that Williams had a "normal" respect for wild animals. When asked whether he had ever discussed how to behave around wild alligators with Williams, her son-in-law responded: "No. There was neverquite frankly, there was never any reason to. I mean she was an intelligent person. She wouldthere was no question in my mind thatI guess I have to answer that as it's not like talking to a five year old child... stay away from alligators." In addition, Williams' son recalled a similar instance when he stopped the car to allow his mother to look at an alligator. At that time Williams mentioned that she did not like alligators and did not want to go anywhere near them. One who is familiar with the premises cannot rely for recovery upon the negligence of the defendant in failing to correct a patent defect where such party had equal means with the defendant of discovering it or equal knowledge of its existence. In this case, testimony shows that Williams was aware that wild alligators were present around The Landings and in the lagoons. Therefore, she had knowledge equal to The Landings entities about the presence continued of alligators in the community. In addition, the record shows that Williams knew that the wild alligators were dangerous, saying herself that she would not want to be anywhere near them. Nonetheless, Williams chose to go for a walk at night near a lagoon in a community in which she knew wild alligators were present. This act undisputably shows that Williams either knowingly assumed the risks of walking in areas inhabited by wild alligators or failed to exercise ordinary care by doing so. Under these circumstances, the trial court should have granted the motions for summary judgment brought by the Landings entities regarding Williams' premises liability claims. While there is no doubt that Williams' death was a tragic event, Williams was not incompetent. A reasonable adult who is not disabled understands that small alligators have large parents and are capable of moving from one lagoon to another, and such an adult, therefore, assumes the risk of an alligator attack when, knowing that wild alligators are present in a community, walks near a lagoon in that community after dark. The motion for summary judgment is granted. DISSENTING OPINION BENHAM, Justice Notably absent from the majority's opinion are facts which, if construed in appellees' favor, require the denial of appellants' motions for summary judgment. For example, the Landings Association had an advertised policy that it removed from the 151 lagoons in the community alligators which were seven feet long or larger and/or alligators which were aggressive toward humans or pets; the appellants did not patrol or inspect the lagoons in order to remove large or aggressive alligators according to its policy, but rather relied on residents and employees to report said animals; and appellants did not post signs near the lagoons warning guests about alligators. One expert opined that the over eight foot long, 130 pound alligator that attacked the decedent had likely been in the lagoon where the decedent's body was found for some time because such mature alligators tend to be territorial and nest. There was also evidence in the record that the decedent called for help during the attack, but that appellants' security forces, which were not trained in dealing with alligators, responded to the wrong location and then stopped investigating, assuming that the sounds in question were bird calls. Based on the facts presented at the time of summary judgment in this case, reasonable minds could differ as to the essential elements of appellees' premises liability claim. Indeed, there are very specific questions in this case that must go to a jury: whether decedent knew that large and aggressive alligators were living on the premises and in the lagoon in which her body was discovered; and whether appellants exercised reasonable care in inspecting and keeping the premises safe from alligatorsin particular, alligators that were over seven feet long and alligators that were aggressive toward humans and pets as per appellants' removal policy. Rather than allowing this evidence to be reviewed by a fact-finder, the majority opinion bars appellees' premises liability claim simply because the decedent once observed an alligator standing on the roadside. CASE QUESTIONS 1. What fact is used to show that Ms. Williams assumed the risk on alligators? 2. Why does the dissent differ with the finding on assumption of risk?