Court Opinion

ID: 9580153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:28.487991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:04.842293
License: Public Domain

Harrison, J.,
concurring.
The opinion of the majority unnecessarily makes an owner of a commercial swimming pool virtually an insurer of its patrons’ safety in contravention of our holding in Blacka v. James, 205 Va. 646, 139 S.E.2d 47 (1964). There we expressly rejected the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as applying to swimming pools and held that:
“Lifeguards are to aid those in distress, and unless there is some cause to believe that one is in distress they cannot be expected to act....” 205 Va. at 651, 139 S.E.2d at 51.
As in Blacka, there was no indication in this case that decedent, Lovett, was in distress. The sole fact that he had been “splashing” in the pool does not provide such proof. To conclude otherwise would be to engage in the type of surmise and conjecture expressly rejected in Blacka and places an unreasonable and impractical duty upon lifeguards.
On the other hand, the owners of the pool, in violation of a city ordinance, maintained a pool which was so “cloudy” that *133decedent’s body could not be seen at its bottom. The fact that the owners had previously sought to alleviate this dangerous condition evidenced their knowledge thereof. The legitimate inference follows that had the pool been clear enough to discern a body at the bottom of the pool, someone in or around the pool would have seen the decedent and come to his rescue or given an alarm at a time earlier than was done in this case.
In Burgert v. Tietjens, 499 F.2d 1, 5 (10th Cir. 1974), the court, in a case similar to this one, concluded:
“The inference is that, had the guard not been able to see the body, a finding of proximate cause could have been arrived at without resorting to conjecture. The evidence in this case is unrefuted that [decedent’s] body could not be seen at the bottom of appellants’ pool. It would seem to be a justifiable inference that this condition materially interfered with any possible .rescue activity.”
Without eroding the principles enunciated in Blacka, this case should be affirmed on the ground that there is sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that the proximate cause of decedent’s death was the negligent maintenance of the pool in an unsafe condition.