Court Opinion

ID: 9706394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:42:41.543912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.487753
License: Public Domain

BERGER, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority holds that, because a frozen pond is one of the “many ordinary dangers that children can reasonably be expected to discover and appreciate,” NCC *116had no duty to protect Jeremiah from the risk of falling through the ice. In reaching this conclusion, the majority says that the irrigation pond is no different than a natural pond. Although it acknowledges that moving water pumped through the irrigation pond caused it to freeze unevenly, the majority says that there is no record evidence that “the irrigation system affected the ice any differently than naturally moving water.”
The record evidence expressly identifies the irrigation system as the source of the water ágitation that caused the ice to freeze unevenly. The man-made irrigation pond, which supplies water to the NCC golf course through underground pipes, is fed by three wells that pump water into the pond at one end, and a spillway pipe that drains excess water at the other end.1 Because the water in the pond is moving, or agitated, at those two points, the pond does not freeze evenly. Jeremiah stepped onto the iced-over pond at any area that was far from the spillway pipe. He fell through the ice as he neared the pipe, where the ice was thinner. The ice was thinner at that point because, unbeknownst to Jeremiah, there were pipes pumping water through the pond for irrigation purposes.2 These facts, which are unrebutted, support the Butlers’ claim that the artificial aspect of this pond created the hazard of uneven freezing. What lacks any record evidence is the majority’s proposition that all ponds have moving water that causes them to freeze unevenly. If NCC wanted to demonstrate that this irrigation pond is no different than a natural pond, it could have presented expert evidence about the movement of water in ponds. The record on appeal does not provide any such evidence.
Finally, the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment should be reversed under the holding in Schorah v. Carey3. In that case, an 8-year-old boy climbed a fence on another’s property while playing a game of tag. He stood on the fence for a few moments and noticed a rusty pole partially concealed in a rose bush on the other side of the fence. He fell on the pole, which became imbedded in his chest.
This Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Schorah, reasoning:
The fact that the- child discovered the pole is not, standing alone, sufficient to preclude liability under § 339. As Comment k states:
“The lack of experience and judgment normal to young children may prevent them from realizing that a condition observed by them is dangerous or, although they may realize that it is dangerous, may prevent them from appreciating the full extent of the risk.”
It must therefore appear, and in the context of summary judgment appear to a “reasonable certitude,”... that there is no issue of fact as to whether the child appreciated the “full risk involved.... ”
It cannot be said as a matter of law that he appreciated the full risk of being impaled on a metal pole located as this one was....
*117Whether the boy did or could be expected to realize the risk involved requires a weighing of several factors, including his age.... It is for the jury to weigh those factors.4
The facts of this case fit squarely within the Schorah holding. Jeremiah may have appreciated the risk of walking on a frozen pond, but he had no reason to know that the irrigation pipes, and resulting water movement, would cause the pond to freeze so unevenly that it could hold his weight in one location, but not in another. A jury should consider whether Jeremiah should be held responsible for his improvident actions, or whether NCC should have taken steps beyond those that it did take to protect him from his childish bad judgment.
I dissent.

. Deposition of David J. Cox, Appellant’s Appendix, A-46.

. Affidavit of Arthur H. Mittelstaedt, Jr., Appellant’s Appendix, A-226-27.

. 331 A.2d 383 (Del.1975).

. 331 A.2d at 385 (Citations omitted, emphasis in original.)