Eighty-one-year-old Howard had visited the same auto shop about 390 times over 15 years and knew its service bays contained deep, stationary vehicle pits. While crouching to help an employee adjust his headlights, Howard backed toward a pit he knew was behind him without looking and fell; he sued the shop and its manager. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment on equal knowledge and failure to exercise ordinary care, and Howard appealed. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that Howard’s longstanding familiarity with the unchanged layout and his awareness that he was backing toward the pit gave him knowledge equal to the defendants’ of this static hazard; nothing obstructed his view. His claims that the employee coerced him, could see the pit better, or that the headlights blinded him did not create a jury issue: the invitation was voluntary, the employee’s vantage point was unknown, and the blindness assertion lacked record support. Howard also offered no evidence that age or his crouched position prevented him from looking or shifting before he moved. The court affirmed summary judgment for the shop and manager.