Court Opinion

ID: 9764795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:40:45.844162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:48.625757
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Musmanno:
I am of the opinion that the drastic rules regarding contributory negligence do not apply when the plaintiff is lulled into a false security through the misconduct of the defendant or his representative. If Thomas Druding had walked into the Kecreation Center, removed his outer clothing and, without inquiring of anyone, dived into the pool, it could be said that in the process he had disrobed himself of the garment of prudence and therefore could not legally complain of the injuries induced by his own precipitate and heedless action. But the record shows that he exercised reason *206and care in anticipation of his swim: “Q. Tell us what happened when you got to the pool? A. I went to the door and I asked the man if I could take a swim. Q. What man? A. The attendant. Q. What did he say? A. He said, ‘Yes, sure.’ He says, ‘You got trunks?’ I said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Well, you got shorts?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Well, that’s o.k. Go ahead in.’ Q. You went in? A. Yes. Q. What happened after you got inside the Recreation Center? A. I went to the locker. He told me, he said I could take any locker that the door was open and it was empty. So when I came out, he said, ‘You got any money or any valuables?’ I said ‘Sure.’ So then he said, ‘You better let me hold it for you, because you’re liable to get clipped.’ Q. That was the same attendant? A. Yes, the same fellow that let me in the door. Q. You checked your money with him? A. That is right. Then he said, ‘You got to go under the shower before you go in the pool.’ Q. Did you go in the shower? A. Yes, I was under the shower maybe five minutes or so.”
Whatever apprehension may have entered the plaintiff’s mind when he saw that the surface of the water did not quite reach the rim of the pool was certainly wiped away by the several assurances of the attendant that it was okay to “go ahead in.” To “go ahead in” obviously means to proceed as nearly all experienced swimmers do — that is, go in by diving.
If a traveller is assured by the official watchman at a bridge that it is safe to cross over, even though one of the piers seems to be damaged, and then the bridge falls to the traveller’s injury, it would be a question for the jury whether the traveller exercised the care of a reasonably prudent man in accepting the assurance of a person whose specific duty it was to protect the safety of the travelling public using that bridge.
*207Druding had not entered a swimming pool for 26 years and had never visited this one before. When he emerged from the showers he walked some 8 or 10 feet toward the end marked “Deep End,” which brought him within 15 feet of the extremity of the pool on the deep side and 65 feet from the extremity which was the shallow end. No one was standing in the water at the spot he mentally aimed at in his prospective dive so that he could not tell by the high water mark on anybody’s body that the water at that point was only 2 feet deep. He raised his hands above his head in the approved orthodox diving position and sprang forward into the water which, because of its dark green color, concealed the nearness of the concrete floor beneath.
Another factor which helped to lull the plaintiff into a sense of false security was the fact that the people already in the pool were leaping, swimming and cavorting about, agitating the water into waves, splashings and cascadings. With this lively aqueous movement before Ms eyes the lowness of the content of the pool would not be as obvious to the plaintiff as it would have been had the water been unruffled by human occupancy.
If Druding had been extra-cautious he might before diving have asked one more question of the attendant who had already assured him it was alright to go in, namely, “Is it alright to dive here?” But I do not believe that, considering all the circumstances his failure to ask that one further question convicted him of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
It also occurs to me that contributory negligence as a matter of law could well be ruled out of this case on account of the wanton misconduct of the defendant’s representatives. This pool was open each evening from 7 to 9 o’clock. Only 50 minutes after the pool opened, the manager began to drain it. With one hour and 10 *208minutes still remaining of bathing time, the defendant’s agent proceeded to dismantle the pool by emptying it. By 8:15 o’clock he had already released over one half of the water content without notifying any of the bathers or intending bathers of the rapidly approaching drought.
More than that, while the life-sustaining element of the instrumentality under his part-control was quickly disappearing, the attendant on duty practically persuaded the plaintiff to enter by telling him how he should dress for the swim, where he should check his valuables and how he should prepare for the natatorial recreation by taking a shower first. A life guard standing by saw the plaintiff prepare to dive in and made no effort to stop him or warn him of the danger of a broken neck by plunging head foremost to a concrete floor covered by a mere two feet of yielding liquid.
The conduct on the part of these several agents and employes of the defendant combined to make out a reckless, wanton and wilful disregard of the safety of the public, which can only be characterized as wanton misconduct.
I would affirm the judgment of the court below.