Court Opinion

ID: 9624128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:51:51.046533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:39.500224
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting)—Appellant suffered the injury to his wrist under the circumstances set forth in the majority opinion. The doctor testified the appellant suffered the loss of the tendon power of the thumb, loss of flexion of thumb, and loss of flexion of the index and middle fingers. In addition, he had complete paralysis of the median nerve, which nerve supplies sensation to the surface of the thumb, index finger, and each of the ring fingers, and at the time of the trial his disability, was around thirty per cent of the hand.
This appeal raises the question whether the court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the appellant’s complaint at the end of the respondent’s case for the reason that the evidence failed to prove that respondent was negligent.
The evidence disclosed that the Wandermere Company, a Washington corporation, owns about three hundred seventy-five acres of land in Spokane county, almost all of *773which is devoted to various recreational facilities. The respondent corporation operates a golf course, a ski jump hill, a picnic grounds, a clubhouse, a bathhouse, and an artificial lake for swimming.
This lake was susceptible to being drained, and according to the respondent’s manager was, in fact, 'drained each fall. The lake bottom was composed of clay with an overburden of sand in the general vicinity of the beach adjacent to the bathhouse where the injury occurred. Accordingly, in the early morning hours when the ripple on the water was not too pronounced, one could see the bottom fairly clearly from the bathhouse boardwalk out a distance of fifteen to twenty feet. On the other hand as the day wore on and the swimmers stirred up the water, it became impossible to see any object on the bottom of the lake. Mr. Ross, respondent’s manager, stated that in the fall of 1952 and the spring of 1953, the lake was drained and cleaned, and further testified:
“We take all the weeds, rocks, cans, glass, bottles, cans— anything else people might have thrown in there during the winter and summer season . . . out, [and respondent’s] life guard . . . picks up all the cans and bottles, or sticks of wood, or anything that might be thrown in at the beach or the bath house itself.”
William Stillwell, an employee of respondent, stated that he had seen people throwing bottles into the water in front of the bathhouse and had himself picked up bottles and glass on the beach area during the summer of 1953, and further that quite often, about twice a week during the swimming season, he had given first aid to swimmers who had cut their feet while in the water and had reported these accidents to the manager of the bathhouse, Mrs. Morin.
Clarence Ripley, another employee of respondent’s, testified that quite a problem was created by trespassers holding parties at Wandermere late at night and throwing bottles and other debris into the lake at the swimming area.
John Anderson, still another employee of the respondent, testified that he started working for respondent in March, 1953, and was still so employed at the time of the trial. That at the time the lake was partially drained in 1953, he and *774others “picked up bottles and cans, or whatever we could find out there as far as we could go without getting into the water.”
Lawrence Baskett, respondent’s lifeguard during the time in question, testified that he recalled an instance when a bottle was broken in the immediate vicinity of the bathhouse promenade; that occasionally he saw glass, broken bottles, and tin cans in the same area.
And Clifford Akers testified that, sometime between the 4th of July and the 30th of August, 1953, he suffered a cut on his toe from what he believed was a piece of glass while wading in the water in front of the bathhouse, and that Mrs. Morin administered first aid to him.
Mrs. Morin’s testimony was particularly directed toward describing the way in which respondent attempted to make the dangerous condition reasonably safe. Her effort echoed the testimony of all the witnesses who described the method used by respondent to keep the lake bottom in the beach area free from dangerous objects when she stated as follows, in answer to questions put to her by counsel for appellant:
“Q. Were you ever advised or instructed, or was there any kind of an operating administrative rule in effect with respect to an inspection of the bottom of the beach in any certain distance to the right of the bathhouse, left of the bathhouse, or in front of the bathhouse? A. Mr. Ross told me that I was to see that it was kept clean over the entire area, and to see that the boys did keep it picked up. Q. I have reference to the water area—out in the water. A. If there was anything out there that they could see, they were supposed to pick it up. Q. How far out were they supposed to check to see if there was anything out there, and if there was, to pick it up? A. As far out as there was anything in the lake anywhere. Q. How did you determine that, yourself? What procedure did you used to follow—just by looking out? A. Yes, just by looking out. Q. And sending the youngsters out if you saw something? A. Yes. Q. And on occasions did they bring bottles in? A. Yes. Q. During the 1953 season? A. Yes. Q. Did the boys ever bring any glass to you? A. Yes, on occasion they did—broken bottles. Q. Out of that area? A. Yes. Q. Those are the ones that you could observe? You would send them out to pick them up? A. Yes. Q. Do *775you recall whether the bottom of the water out there was ever raked in any fashion? A. While there was water in the lake? Q. Yes. A. Right in front of the beach it is about three and a half feet deep. You can’t rake in three feet of water. Q. I am just asking whether you did or didn’t. A. Not that I know of; not while there was water in the lake. Q. The way you attempted to keep it clean was by observation only —by observing and looking down in the water to see if you could see anything? A. And sending some one out to do it.”
The evidence} briefly outlined above, established that respondent had knowledge of the dangerous condition of the premises; or, in the alternative, if the respondent was given the benefit of every inference and the evidence was considered in the light most favorable to the respondent, it was for the jury to determine whether respondent had constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed. It was also for the jury to determine whether the precautions and the methods adopted by the respondent would make the premises reasonably safe for the users thereof. Under the circumstances, the judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was reversible error, and the matter should be remanded with instructions to grant the appellant a new trial.