Court Opinion

ID: 9483025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:08:06.642275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:21.908052
License: Public Domain

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Plaintiffs’ claim is that defendant failed to sound an adequate warning of the release of water from the dam, and that this failure was the proximate cause of Robert Henderson’s drowning. Based on the un-controverted evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding that even if defendant had failed to sound an adequate warning, this failure could not have been the proximate cause of Henderson’s death, for Henderson clearly had actual knowledge the water was rising in ample time to make his way safely from the gravel bar to the shore. Accordingly, a louder blast of the siren would not have put Henderson on notice of anything he did not know in sufficient time to allow for a margin of safety, yet for reasons known only to him he delayed his departure from the gravel bar until it was too late. This unnecessary delay on his part, and not defendant’s failure to warn adequately, if indeed defendant was guilty of such a failure, was the fatal error. See Will v. United States, 849 F.2d 315, 318 (8th Cir.1988) (defendant’s asserted failure to warn of dangers of diving at a particular campsite was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries in view of plaintiff’s knowledge and evidence that a warning would not have deterred plaintiff from engaging in the dangerous activity).
The District Court determined there was no triable issue concerning Henderson’s early awareness that the water was rising. I am satisfied that its decision is correct and should not be disturbed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.