Title: King v. National Spa and Pool Institute
Citation: 570 So. 2d 612
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 1990

570 So. 2d 612 (1990)
Barbara Briant KING, as Administratrix of the Estate of Kenneth A. Halpern, Deceased
v.
NATIONAL SPA AND POOL INSTITUTE, INC.
89-605.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 14, 1990.
Rehearing Denied October 19, 1990.
*613 Jere L. Beasley and Kenneth J. Mendelsohn of Beasley, Wilson, Allen, Mendelsohn &amp; Jemison, Montgomery, for appellant.
Geary A. Gaston and William W. Watts of Reams, Vollmer, Philips, Killion, Brooks &amp; Schell, Mobile, for appellee.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Barbara Briant King, as administratrix of the estate of Kenneth A. Halpern, deceased ("Ms. King's intestate"), appeals from a summary judgment in favor of National Spa and Pool Institute, Inc. ("the trade association"), made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P. The only question presented to us is a question of first impression in this State: What duty, if any, does a manufacturer's trade association owe to a consumer to prevent injuries caused by the product of a manufacturer who is a member of that trade association?
In the fall of 1987, Ms. King's intestate purchased a house and a lot in Mobile, Alabama. There was an in-ground, vinyl-lined swimming pool that had been constructed in 1981 by Southern Leisure Pool and Supply Corporation ("Southern Leisure"), a defendant not involved in this appeal. The evidence before the trial court showed that the swimming pool met the trade association's "Suggested Minimum Standards for Residential Swimming Pools" ("standards") and was of the size, shape, and dimensions that the trade association prescribed for allowing the type of diving board that had been installed with the pool. In May, 1988, Ms. King's intestate dove into the pool from the diving board. He did not slip, trip, or otherwise go into the pool unintentionally. It can reasonably be inferred that Ms. King's intestate hit his head on the bottom or side of the pool and sustained a broken neck that caused permanent quadriplegia. Approximately eight and one-half months later, he died of pneumonia secondary to quadriplegia.
In opposition to the trade association's motion for summary judgment, Ms. King filed an affidavit of Dr. George E. Lawniazak, an expert in diving injuries and swimming pools. According to Dr. Lawniazak, even though the subject swimming pool met the trade association's minimum standards for allowing the type of diving board that had been installed for diving into the pool, the pool was defective and unreasonably dangerous for diving from the diving board. Also according to Dr. Lawniazak, the pool had inadequate dimensions, the water volume in the pool was inadequate for safe diving from the diving board, and the configuration of the pool was such that it was not safe for diving from the diving board.
Ms. King's theory of liability against the trade association is that the standards that allowed the placement of a diving board in this particular size pool created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Did the trade association owe Ms. King's intestate, the owner and a user of a pool manufactured and installed in accordance with the standards promulgated by the trade association, a duty? If not, Ms. King's action for negligence cannot lie, and the judgment must be affirmed. "If the defendant owed a duty, but did not owe it to the plaintiff, the action [for negligence] *614 will not lie." 1 Shearman &amp; Redfield, On the Law of Negligence § 8 at 13-14 (6th ed.1913). See, also, Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).
In Pugh v. Butler Telephone Co., 512 So. 2d 1317, 1319 (Ala.1987), this Court held:
(Emphasis supplied.)
A legal duty is "an obligation arising from a contract of the parties or the operation of the law." Black's Law Dictionary 804 (5th ed.1979).
A legal duty to exercise care, therefore, arises where the parties are bound by contract, Pugh v. Butler Telephone Co., supra, or where the obligations are "expressly or impliedly imposed by statute, municipal ordinance, or by administrative rules or regulations, or by judicial decisions." 57 Am.Jur.2d, Negligence § 36 at 382 (1988).
There are no allegations that a contract existed between the trade association and Ms. King's intestate or that Ms. King's intestate was a third-party beneficiary of a contractual relationship between Southern Leisure and the trade association or that the trade association violated any statutes, ordinances, or rules or regulations enacted or promulgated to protect Ms. King's intestate.
There is no duty imposed by judicial decision on trade associations to promulgate industry standards.
Therefore, the trade association had no statutorily or judicially imposed duty to formulate standards; however, it did so. It is well settled under Alabama law that one who undertakes to perform a duty he is not otherwise required to perform is thereafter charged with the duty of acting with due care. Rudolph v. First Southern Federal Savings &amp; Loan Ass'n, 414 So. 2d 64 (Ala.1982). This is in accord with Justice Cardozo's classic case, Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236, 239, 135 N.E. 275, 276, 23 A.L.R. 1425 (1922):
The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1966), states:
Ms. King's intestate did not know of the trade association's standards, so clearly he did not rely on them when he dove into his pool. However, if the manufacturer or installer of the pool relied on the standards promulgated by the trade association in constructing or installing the pool, the trade association could be liable under the principles of § 324A(b) and/or (c), which state the law of Alabama.
The "Foreword" to the standards read as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
This was followed by the names of the members of the Standards and Codes Committee and the names and addresses of the companies (e.g., Gary Aquatech Pools, Inc.), agencies (e.g., National Safety Council), or institutions (e.g., Yale University) with which the committee members were affiliated. After certain phrases or words were defined in the standards, there were 15 pages of "minimum standards" relating to (1) structural design, (2) dimensional design, (3) materials of construction, (4) deck equipment (steps, ladders, stairs, diving boards, and platforms), (5) safety features, (6) electrical requirements, (7) water supply, (8) inlets and outlets, (9) recirculation systems (piping, fitting, filters, skimmers), (10) skimmers, (11) filters, (12) pumps and strainers, (13) valves, (14) chemical feeding equipment, and (15) waste water disposal. The section on dimensional design was the most detailed, and it divided pools into five types. Type one included any residential pool where the installation of diving equipment was prohibited. The other four types included residential pools that were suitable for the installation of diving equipment of one of four classifications. The last subsection of the dimensional design standard read as follows:
The Appendix to the Standards specifically states that "one of the basic considerations upon which these design and construction standards are founded is safety."
On the cover sheet of the standards, the following appears: "COMPLIANCE BY: January 1, 1974."
In Bush v. Alabama Power Co., 457 So. 2d 350, 353 (Ala.1984), this Court held: "The ultimate test of a duty to use [due] care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if care is not exercised." In Palsgraf, supra, Justice Cardozo wrote: *616 "[T]he eye of vigilance perceives the risk of damage.... The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension." 248 N.Y.  at 344, 162 N.E.  at 100.
In the instant case, the standards refer to "the needs of the consumer," e.g., Ms. King's intestate. In the instant case, a label showing that diving equipment must meet the standards was required to be permanently affixed to the pool or deck. But for whose benefit? For the benefit of the consumer, e.g., Ms. King's intestate. In the instant case, the appendix to the standards states that "safety" is one of the basic considerations upon which the design and construction standards are founded. Whose safety? That of the consumer, e.g., Ms. King's intestate.
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trade association was under a legal duty to exercise due care in promulgating the standards in question. The trade association's voluntary undertaking to promulgate minimum safety design standards for safe diving from diving boards installed in residential swimming pools (such standards being based on studies of the "needs of the consumer" and founded on a consideration of "safety" involved in the design and construction of such swimming pools) and to disseminate those standards to its members for the purpose of influencing their design and construction practices, made it foreseeable that harm might result to the consumer if it did not exercise due care.
In Alabama, evidence that a defendant manufacturer complied with or failed to comply with industry standards, such as the standards promulgated by the trade association in this case, is admissible as evidence of due care or the lack of due care. Elmore County Commission v. Ragona, 540 So. 2d 720 (Ala.1989); Dunn v. Wixom Bros., 493 So. 2d 1356 (Ala.1986). Such evidence is not conclusive on this issue, but is evidence of due care or lack of due care, to be evaluated by the trier of fact with other evidence on this issue.
We have carefully reviewed the cases from other jurisdictions[1] cited by the trade association in support of its position. We note that some of those cases involve varying fact situations as well as varying theories on which the negligence claims are grounded. However, the underlying rule of law, the rationale on which those cases were decided, is the same and is best stated in Meyers v. Donnatacci, 220 N.J.Super. 73, 531 A.2d 398 (1987) (a case of first impression in New Jersey), which did not involve allegations of negligence on the part of the trade association in promulgating standards for the design and construction of pools, but, instead, involved the trade association's non-feasance in failing to take action to prevent users of pools from diving from the side of a pool into shallow water:
Meyers v. Donnatacci, 220 N.J.Super. at 81-89, 531 A.2d  at 402-07.
As previously noted, Meyers involved the failure on the part of a trade association to take any action to prevent users of pools from diving from the side of a pool into shallow water. It did not involve allegations of negligence on the part of a trade association in promulgating standards for the design and construction of pools, as does the case at issue. Therefore, although we might have reached the same result under the facts in Meyers as the New Jersey Superior Court did, we find that court's rationale not to be in accordance with general principles of Alabama law and, thus, unpersuasive. In our view, the fact that the standards promulgated by a trade association are based on a voluntary consensus of its members, or the fact that a trade association does not specifically control the actions of its members, does not, as a matter of law, absolve the trade association of a duty to exercise reasonable care when it undertakes to promulgate standards for the "needs of the consumer."
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
[1]  Beasock v. Dioguardi Enterprises, Inc., 130 Misc.2d 25, 494 N.Y.S.2d 974 (Sup.Ct.1985); Friedman v. F.E. Myers Co., 706 F. Supp. 376 (E.D.Pa.1989); Goldberg v. Housing Authority of Newark, 38 N.J. 578, 186 A.2d 291 (1962); Gunsalus v. Celotex Corp., 674 F. Supp. 1149 (E.D.Pa. 1987); Howard v. Poseidon Pools, Inc., 133 Misc.2d 50, 506 N.Y.S.2d 523 (Sup.Ct.1986), aff'd, 134 A.D.2d 926, 522 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1987); Klein v. Council of Chemical Associations, 587 F. Supp. 213 (E.D.Pa.1984); Meyers v. Donnatacci, 220 N.J.Super. 73, 531 A.2d 398 (1987).