Court Opinion

ID: 9630462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:11:30.643871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:03.568471
License: Public Domain

Shangraw, C.J.
(Ket.), Assigned. I respectfully dissent from the order of this Court affirming the judgment below. My primary concern is that the trial court failed to pass on the necessary issues properly presented below, without which an affirmance of the judgment in favor of the defendants on the limited basis set forth in the majority opinion appears to me ill-advised.
In their complaint, plaintiffs allege negligence on the part of the defendants in the following particulars:
A. In maintaining a private recreational area for use of the general public, and Plaintiffs in particular, on a paid basis, without providing adequate and necessary safeguards so as to prevent injury or death to persons using Defendants’ facilities, such as decedent, such as by failing to provide lifeguards; failing to erect proper fences and barricades around the swimming area; failing to provide a limited area of said pool which was shallow, *73properly roped off and supervised for the use of young children; failing to provide and have readily accessible adequate and proper resuscitation equipment; failing to provide proper and adequate telephone facilities at the site of their recreational facilities for emergency purposes; ...
B. In providing an attractive nuisance for minor children -such as decedent.
C. In opening said recreational facilities with the knowledge of all of the obvious hazards.
Notwithstanding the several distinct allegations of negligence, the ease was disposed of below adversely to the plaintiffs on the following limited basis as revealed by the trial court’s conclusion of law:
Baséd on the Findings of Fact the Court concludes that the failure of the defendant to furnish a lifeguard was not in and of itself sufficient negligence to warrant recovery on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court from the Findings of Fact concludes there is no causable connection between the failure to furnish a lifeguard and the drowning of the child ....
It is universally accepted that a private owner or operator of a bathing resort or swimming pool is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons. Rather, he is bound to use ordinary, due, or reasonable care for the safety of his patrons. 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Amusements and Exhibitions, Sec. 84. This comports with the following statement in Garafano v. Neshobe Beach Club, 126 Vt. 566, 570, 238 A.2d 70 (1967):
If the owner or occupier of land “directly or by implication induces persons to enter on and pass over his premises, he thereby assumes an obligation that they are in a safe condition, suitable for such use”.
The area in question was open for swimming by family groups on a fee paid basis. Thus, it would appear to have been the defendants’ duty to assure that the four-acre pond was reasonably safe for such use, which included the participation of children and non-swimmers in water activities.
The following facts are not controverted: No lifeguard was. in attendance; there were no markers indicating the *74depth of water at different points; no area was roped off between the two parallel lines for the use of small children or non-swimmers. It is my understanding that children frequently transported themselves over deep water along the buoyed ropes, which fact was known to Mr. Coffin. The decedent’s body was found in seven feet of water forty to fifty feet from shore near a buoyed rope. As bearing upon the duties and liabilities of the operator of a bathing resort, see Annot., 48 A.L.R. 2d 104 (1956), and A.L.R.2d Later Case Service (supplementing Annot., supra, 48 A.L.R.2d at 126, § 13[a]).
In its determination of liability or non-liability, the trial court was confronted with the following question: “Did the defendants neglect to perform their duty to use the requisite overall degree of care for the decedent’s safety?” A resolution of this issue was not made at the trial level. The court •merely passed on only one of the several claims of alleged negligence; namely, the absence of a lifeguard.
I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have been shortchanged. I would reverse and remand.