Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03137/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03137-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

,,. 

F .l .L .I-' L, , United St.at~ Co.irt of Apr,;:::.--, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tm·i'i r· ~··'.~ 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TIMOTHY NEFF, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

LAURA NEFF, 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

COLECO INDUSTRIES, INC., a 

Connecticut corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 2 1992 

ROBT4:!?.T L. HOECKEE 

Cler~ 

No. 91-3137 

(U.S.D.C. No. 88-2347) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, SETH, and ALDISERT**, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

**Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, United States Circuit Judge for 

the Third Circuit, sitting by desi gnation. 

Appellate Case: 91-3137 Document: 010110243024 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 1
34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Timothy Neff filed this products liability suit 

seeking recovery for injuries sustained when he dived head first 

into a swimming pool manufactured by Appellee Coleco. The 

district court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment and 

held that there were no issues of material fact in dispute and 

that under Kansas law Appellee had no duty to warn Appellant about 

the dangers of diving head first into a shallow pool. 

Alternatively, the court held that Appellee's failure to warn 

Appellant was not the proximate cause of Appellant's injuries. 

The material facts in this case are not in dispute. While 

attending a party at a friend's house, Appellant swam and dived 

into the friend's above ground pool. The pool was manufactured by 

Appellee. Appellant had dived into the pool on numerous occasions 

and knew that it was four feet deep. At the time of the accident 

Appellant was twenty-five years of age, stood six feet, two inches 

tall, and weighed approximately 175 pounds. Appellant had never 

come in contact with the bottom of the pool as a result of a dive. 

After making several safe dives into the pool, Appellant attempted 

to dive head first through an inner tube that was floating four to 

six feet from the edge of the deck. While executing this dive, 

Appellant struck his head on the bottom of the pool causing severe 

injury. As a result of the injury, Appellant is now a 

quadriplegic. 

Appellant claims that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment for Appellee. We review the distr ict court's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3137 Document: 010110243024 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 2
grant of summary judgment de novo. Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin 

Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir.). Summary judgment is 

appropriate when there are no material facts in disp ute and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. 

Under Kansas law, there is no duty imposed on a manufacturer 

or seller to warn or protect against "dangers, hazards or risks 

which are patent, open or obvious and which should have been 

realized by a reasonable user or consumer of the product." K.S.A. 

§ 60-3305(c). 

We agree with the district court that "the risk of propelling 

a six-foot, two-inch frame head first into shallow water is 

patent, open and obvious and should be readily apparent to a 

reasonable user of the swimming pool." (D. Ct. Op. at 10.) 

Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment in 

favor of Appellee. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3137 Document: 010110243024 Date Filed: 04/22/1992 Page: 3