Title: Smith v. Village of Pine River
Citation: 232 N.W.2d 241
Docket Number: 44539
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 1975

232 N.W.2d 241 (1975) Charles F. SMITH, a Minor, by His Father and Natural Guardian, William A. Smith, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF PINE RIVER, Minnesota, Respondent. No. 44539. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 8, 1975. *242 Kelly &amp; Finley, R. Donald Kelly, and Gordon I. Sinclair, St. Paul, for appellants. Carroll, Cronan, Roth &amp; Austin and Robert M. Austin, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J. (Ret.), and OTIS and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc. OTIS, Justice. The plaintiffs, Charles F. Smith, a minor, and his father, William A. Smith, Jr., seek to recover damages against the village of Pine River for injuries sustained by Charles arising out of his use of a municipal bathing beach maintained by the defendant. The court tried the case without a jury and found for the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion for amended findings or a new trial. We affirm. The facts are not in dispute. The village of Pine River has, since 1937, maintained a municipal bathing beach which includes a diving tower, a picture of which is attached as an appendix. On July 31, 1967, Charles, who was then 14, and his sister, who was then 8, were taken to the beach by their grandmother to swim. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, while Charles was leaning over the edge of the elevated diving platform talking to his sister who was in the water, another child pushed him from behind. His left hand was on the left rail, and as he was propelled forward face down, he grasped the railing long enough to swing backward and dropped some 8 feet to the cement base on which the platform stood. He sustained very severe and disabling permanent injuries. In essence, plaintiffs claim defendant was negligent in the following respects: (1) The village did not provide safe equipment because the platform of the diving tower did not extend at least 3 feet out over the water. (2) The village failed to post rules governing bathers' conduct or rules governing the duties of the lifeguard, who was then on duty. (3) The village failed to provide any matting or other abrasive material to prevent bathers from slipping on the wet platform. (4) The lifeguard failed to supervise the children adequately so as to prevent roughhousing, pushing, "cannonballing," and other horseplay. (5) The lifeguard should have permitted only one person at a time on the platform. (6) The village should have provided an assistant to relieve the lifeguard at intervals during the day. (7) The lifeguard was not furnished an elevated platform of her own from which she could better observe the activities of the children. Plaintiffs supported their claim by the testimony of an expert in physical education, who stated that the platform should *243 have extended out 3 feet and was unstable, that the platform was too smooth and not properly drained, and that an elevated lifeguard stand should have been provided to permit the lifeguard to better supervise the children. A professional engineer testified to the same general effect and submitted a drawing to show how the structure could have been made safe. The trial court found that defendant was not negligent and did not fail either to furnish a reasonably safe diving tower or to provide adequate supervision. The court further found that Charles assumed the risk of injury. Judgment of dismissal with prejudice was ordered. We hold that the findings of the court are not clearly erroneous and are supported by the evidence. Attached to and made a part of the findings is a memorandum in which the court carefully articulated the reasons for its decision. We adopt as our own the court's views as follows: We are in accord with the reasoning of the trial court and affirm. Affirmed.