Case Name: Hinz v. Starin
Court: New York Supreme Court General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-13
Citations: 3 N.Y.S. 290
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hinz v. Starin.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 3
Pages: 290–293

Head Matter:
Hinz v. Starin.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
December 13,1888.)
Negligence—Contributory Negligence—Injuries at Bathing-Place.
Plaintiff’s intestate, while diving from a trapeze on defendant’s beach, struck his head against a rock under the water, and was killed. 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 3% feet deep. The trapeze was about 15 feet high. Held, that deceased was negligent, and a nonsuit should have been granted. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county.
Action by John R. Hinz, administrator of Oscar C. Hinz, against John II. Starin, brought pursuant to Code Civil Proc. § 1902, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate while bathing at Glen Island, caused by defendant’s negligence. The action was first tried before Justice Dykman and a jury, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $4,000. On appeal the judgment was reversed, and new trial ordered, (46 Hun, 526,) which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $5,000. - From a judgment on this verdict, and an order denying a motion for new trial on the minutes, defendant appeals.
Argued before Pratt, Cullen, and Dykman, JJ.
D. & G. Goodrich, for appellant. Martin J. Keogh, for appellee.

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 mot 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 14 or 15 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. Humorous 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 the event.