Case Name: John R. Hinz, Adm'r, etc., Resp't, v. John H. Starin, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-10
Citations: 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: John R. Hinz, Adm’r, etc., Resp’t, v. John H. Starin, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 21
Pages: 122–127

Head Matter:
John R. Hinz, Adm’r, etc., Resp’t, v. John H. Starin, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 10, 1888.)
Negligence—Injuries at bathing place—Contributory negligence— When nonsuit should be granted.
In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs intestate, who, while diving from a trapeze on defendant’s beach, struck his head against a rock under the water and was killed, the evidence showed that the deceased had been "sitting for about two hours, in full view of the bathing place, during which time the water was filled with bathers, many of whom were wading in the water, which was not more than three and one-half feet deep. The trapeze was about fifteen feet high. Held, that, the negligence of deceased was conclusively shown and that a nonsuit, should have been granted. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from a judgment of $6,669.50, entered upon a verdict for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial.
This action was commenced in January, 1886. The cause came on for trial in March, 1887, at a circuit court, before Hon. Jackson O. Dykman and a jury. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000, and on the 28th day of March, 1887, a judgment was entered on the verdict for $4,597.51. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the general term, winch reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, with costs to abide the event. 12 N. Y. State Rep., 606.
The case came on again for trial at the June, 1888, circuit ■of this court, before Hon. Joseph F. Barnard and a jury, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $5,000, and the court' directed the addition of interest, at six per cent, from the date of the accident.
D. & G. Goodrich, for app’lt; Martin J. Keogh, for resp’t.
See S. C. on former appeal, 12 N. Y. State Rep., 606.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
For about two hours before the accident the deceased was sitting in plain sight of the bathing place, and but a short distance therefrom.
During all that time the water was filled with bathers, and when he entered it great numbers of them surrounded the trapeze, many of them wading.
At that time the water was not more than three and one-half feet deep, and it is not conceivable that he could be ignorant of its shallowness when he climbed the structure from which he plunged. He must have got that knowledge while making his way to the structure, and he could not fail to see the people who were wading.
This act of plunging from a height of fourteen or fifteen feet into such shallow water was one of glaring negligence. It was an act that the proprietor could not reasonably anticipate, and, therefore, was not compelled to guard against.
In respondent's brief it is suggested that some conflict of evidence exists as to whether persons were at the time wading in the water. We do not find any conflict. Numerous persons testify to the fact, among them the mother of the deceased.
We think the negligence of deceased appears conclusively and that a nonsuit should have been granted.
Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event.