35.
protect bathers in case of accident, but are linble for ordinary negligcne of the
attendant in the performance of his duties. A life guard who goes to the rescue
of a patron or guest owes the duty of exercising ordinary care: thet is, such
care as would be used by an ordinarily cémtious life guerd ander like circum
stances; and for a failure in this respect, with resulting injury, an action
for damages vill lie." And in Nolan v. Y.M.C,A.(1932) 12% Neb. 549, 243 N.W,
639, the court quotes the rules as to the duties of bathing resort keepers set
out in Lyman v. Hall, supra. The case, hovever, was one in which the Y.M,C.A,
gratuitously loaned the use of its swimming pool to Boy Scout troops.

In Swan v, Riverside Bathing Beach Co. (1931) 132 Kan, 294 P.

902, a suit for the ~rongful death of a child patron of a swimming pool, it vas
held that no negligence vas shorn as against the proprietor of the pool, where
lite guards “ere on duty, and no indication that the child, whose body vas later
found in the pool vas in danger, vas brought to their attention or to thet of
numerous other patrons of the pool. A syllabus by the court reads as follows:
"Where the parents of a nine-year-old girl sent her vith friends to a modern
swimming pool, providing her with the entrance fee end she had been there four
times before and was a good swimmer and could go anywhere in the pool, it was
not negligence to permit her to enter the pool vithout giving. her the special
attention of a guard."

In Quinn v. Smith Co. (1932) C.C.A. 5th 57 F. (2d) 784, the court
said that the operator of a bathing pool was under a duty to exercise due care
in policing and supervising the pool to protect patrons from the boisterous
and injurious conduct of others; and that it might be liable to ea patron ‘vho was
thrown into the pool by those who were putting on a water carnival.

And in Hill v. Marrick (1934) 147 Or, 244, 31 P, (2a) 663, holding
the proprietor of a swimming pool liable for injuries received by a patron when
she was pushed by other children from a diving tover where she had gone to dive
end fell on the cement edge of the pool, the court said: "For the defendant
to fail ot use reasonable care in furnishing a reasonably safe condition of
the pool end high dive by permitting children to romp and pv ay on the steps and
platform of the high dive was negligence . . . It was the éuty of defendant
to use reasonable care in superintending the pool so es to furnish a reasonably
safe condition, The plaintiff assumed the natural risk of diving from the high
dive into the vater, but did not assume negligence on the part of defendant in
permitting children to jostle or push her off the high dive."

In Maehlman v. Reuben Realty Co. (1928) 32 Ohio App.54,166 N.E.
920, it vas held crror to direct a verdict in favor of persons maintaining a
bathing beach, in a suit against them for injurics received by a patron when he
stepped on a broken bottle under the shallow water along the beach. The court
said that the defendants were under a duty to use ordinary care to make the beach
safe for patrons, and that their failure to inspect the beach under the water
and remove hidden and dangerous obstructions might be negligence, where, shortly
before the accident, broken bottles had been found on the beach out of the water
near the scene of the accident, and had been raked up, but no search had been
made for broken bottles in the water,

And in Skelly v. Pleasure Beach Park Corp. (1932) 115 Conn.92,
160 A, 309, the owner and operator of bathhouses and a bathing beach, who had
fenced off a portion of the beach and required an admission charge, was held
liable for injuries received by a natron from stepping into a submerged concrete
block used as an anchor for a float. The court refused to accept the contention
that, as the defendant's premises extended only to the low watermark, its duty
to patrons was limited accordingly, and it was not liable for injury which
occurred outside the low watermark, stating, "One who assumes to offer the use
of public waters for bathing in connection with bathhouses and other appropriate
appliances maintained bv the owner of the shore owes the duty to exercise
reasonable care to prevent injury to patrons who use the waters in the ordinary
and usual way and consistent with the invitation extended."

 

 

 
36.

In Kearns v. Steinkamp (1932) 184 Ark,1177, 45 S.W. (2d) 519,

a suit for the wrongful death of a boy by diving into a raft provided by the owner
of a swimming pool for the amsement, safety and convenience of patrons, the court
held that the evidence was in conflict and that the question was properly sut-
mitted to the jury as to whether the owner permitted the raft to become water-
soaked and thus submerged and not easily visible to swimmers.

But in Mikulski v. Morgan (1934) 268 Mich, 314, 256 N.W, 339,
the proprietor of a bathing beach who furnished, for the amsement of bathers,
an appliance consisting of a ladder fastened to a gasolene tank, was held not
liable for injuries received by a bather from improper use of the appliance,
where it was not defective in construction, or in disrepair and its nature was
apparent to those using it. The gasolene tank was weighted down so that, when
it floated on the surface of the water, the ladder would stand up perpendicularly
from it and several bathers would hold to the rungs of the ladder, pulling it down
parallel to the water, whereupon all but the top man vould let go, throwing the
ladder into the water on the opposite side. The plaintiff was one of the bathers
holding onto the appliance and, when he let go, his thumb was torn off by being
caught in the angle between the ladder and the btace supporting it. The court
said that the defendant was under a duty to furnish a reasonably safe appliance,
but that plaintiff's injury here was due to his om use of itina way which he
should have foreseen to be dangerous, :

In Park Circuit & Realty Co.v. Ringo (1932) 242 Ky. 255, 46,

S.7, (24) 106, it was held improper to submit to the jury the question of the
liability of the owner of a swimming pool to one injured vhile swimming therein,
by another's falling on him from a water wheel of the type generally used in
modern swimming pools, in the absence of evidence as to the cause of the other
patron's fall. The evidence failed to establish the plaintiff's claim that the
‘heel had become covered with slime and vater growth, and the court said that

the more fact that the top of the wheel was wet or damp from its use in the water
did not render it dangerous.

And in Snitzkof v, Mitchell (1935) 114 N.J.L, 160, 176 A. 186,
where a patron of a swimming pool was injured when she was struck by a person
diving from a springboard in a diagonal and unusual direction a non-suit was held
properly directed in an action against the proprietor of the pool for failure
to furnish proper supervision of bathers, where it vas not shown that it was
customary for persons using the pool to dive in such a manner. VYovwever, in
Esposito v. St. George Swimming Club (1932) 143 Misc. 15, 255 N.Y.S, 794, where
one diving from a 10-foot springboard in a public indoor swimming pool was struck
by another diver before he could emerge from the water, the proprietor of the
pool vas held to be under a duty to take some precautions to avoid such an
occurrence. The doctrine of assumed risk was held inapplicable, since the obliga-
tion rested on the proprietor to take some measures to prevent a patron from diving
until the previous diver had had time to emerge from beneath the water of the pool.

In Gorhardt v. Manhattan Beach Park (1932) 237 App.Div.832,

261 N.Y.S. 185, (affirmed in 1933) 262 N.Y. 698, 188 N.E. 126), a verdict was
held warranted against the proprietor of a bathing beach in favor of a patron
who was injured when struck by one of its beach umbrellas which was bow by the
wind,

 

And in Foucht v. Parkview Amsement Co. (1933) __mo.Avp. __,60
S.W. (2d) 663, the negligence of the operator of a swimming pool in failing to
furnish sufficient light was held a question for the jury, where a patron tripped
over a timber across the doorvay between the shower and locker rooms,

But in Sciarello v. Coast Holding Co. (1934) 242 Anp.Div,802,
274, N.W. S.776, the omer of a swimming pool 7as held not liable for injurics
received by a patron who slipned and fell on the wet floor at the edge of the
pool, the court saying: "The slipnery condition of the pletform surrounding the
defendant's swimming pool was necessarily incidental to the use of the bath,
There was no proof of the violation of any duty or obligation on the part of the
defendant to provide a covering for the floor at the point ~here plaintiff fell."

 
ore

In Waddel v. Brashear, 257 Ky. 390, 78 S.¥. (2d) 31, a suit for
the ~rongful death of a patron at a bathing beach caused by diving from a swing
into shallow water, the court said that it was the duty of the operator of a
pool used to see that the water in it was sufficiently deep to make it reasonably
sefe for that purpose and, if it was not, to warn or caution patrons of that
fact. It was held that the evidence of the operator's negligence was sufficient
for the jury, where no signs were posted nor warnings given, and that the
evidence did not shor conclusively that the deceased had knowledge of the shallov-
nets of the vater so as to bar recovery.

So, in Gray v. Briggs (1932) 259 Mich. 440, 243 N.W. 254, the
operator of a public bathing beach vas held liable for injuries sustained by one
diving from a springboard into too shallow water. The court said that it was
not contributory negligence as a matter of law for the plaintiff to dive from
a soringboard, without knowing or meking eny effort to ascertain the depth of
the veter, and that, unless warned by signs or otherwise, the plaintiff had a
right to assume that it vas safe for him to use the diving board in the usual
and customary manner,

And in Lake Rrady Co, v. Krutel (1931) 123 Ohio St. 570, 176
N.E. 226, a finding of negligence on the part of the operator of a public
bathing beach ves held warranted, vhere it failed to post notices or to inform
bathers that they could not sefely dive from any side of a 10-foot platform
except the side containing e springboard, because of the shellowness of the
water, or othervise to inform them of the depth of vater, although the other
three sides of the platform vere surrounded by a hand-railing. Recovery was
«lloved for the death of a boy caused by diving from a side of the platform on
‘hich there “as a hand rail, even tho he had becn svimming at the beach before,
where the evidence as to his knowledge of the denth of the water into which he
dived was conflicting.

In Louisville Water Co. v. Bowers (1933) 251 Ky. 71, 64 S.W.

(24) 444, where a patron was injured by diving into shallow ~etcr while a
swimming pool was being refilled and when it vas only partly filled, the court
said that it was the duty of the proprietor of a pool used for both swimming
and diving "to use ordinary cere to see that there vas sufficient weter in the
pool to make it reasonably sefe for diving purposes, or to warn patrons of the
enger of diving while the pool was being filled." Since there was a conflict
of testimony as to whether the plaintiff kmew the depth of the water, by reason
of the presence of other bathers and of markers on the sides of the pool, the
question of assumed risk was held properly submitted to the jury and a verdict
for the plaintiff varrented,

Hovever, in Walloch v. Heiden (1930) 180 Ark, 844, 22 S.W,
2a) 1020, a suit for injuries sustained by one diving into a swimming pool, at
a time when it vas being refilled, ond striking the bottom, a verdiét in favor
of the proprietor of the pool was held varranted, where the plaintiff was an
expert strimmer and diver end vas familiar vith the pool. Instructions to the
effect that it vas the duty of the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care for his
om safety when diving, but thet it was not his duty to inspect the pool to
determine its depth or the danger of diving end thet he could only be charged
with such knowledge in regnrd thereto as he actually possessed, unless the facts
"ere so patent that om ordinarily prudent person could not have failed to observe
them, vere held proper.

And in Pinemrst Co. v. Phelps (1932) 163 Md. 68, 160 A, 736, the
omer of a pleasure resort end bathing beach was held not liable for injuries
received by « sixteen-year-old boy in diving from a pier into shallov vater, The
court said thet the omner was not guilty of negligence in failing to post signs
warning of the shallo~mess of the water, where there vas no evidence that bathers
were expected to use or did use the pier «s a structure from “hich to dive.

The boy, who had dived from the pier on a previous occasion and knew the cir
cumstances, vas held to have assumed the ris of the consequences of his act.

 
oes 38.
And in Sturgis v, Wavecrest Realty Co, (1933) 124 Neb. 769,

248 N.%. 78, the omer of s bathing resort vas held not lieble for injurics
received by a bather in diving into shallov water from a -atcrewheel platform —
"hich vas not designed for diving purposes. The plaintiff, a grown man, had
previously dived from a diving tower, which vas in a depner part of the lake

and farther from the shore, and hed gone over the water-vheel several times

before the accident.

It may be of interest to call your attention to a recent decision
of the Supreme Court of Illinois in a case involving the operation of a swimming
pool by a municipality. The opinion in this case (Gebhardt v. Village of LaGrange
Park 354 I11, 234) was ~ritten by Judge Stone and was rendered by the Supreme
Court on October 21, 1933. The principal question discussed vas whether the
operation of a swimming pool is a governmentel or a proprietary function. The
court said that if it be a governmental function the doctrine of resnondeat
superior has no application, and that the village vould not be liable for damages
arising out of the negligence of its servents in thot function, whereas, if the
function be a proprietary one the villnge vould be liable for damages resulting
from the negligence of its servants in the operation of the pool. The court
said that there is substantial contrariety of opinion in the courts of last resort
in this country on this question: that Colorado, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania
and Yest Virginia held thnt the operation of a svimming pool by a municipality
18 not a governmental but a proprietary function and that the States of California,
Kansas, Georgina, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigen, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Iowa take
the opposite vieti, The court concluded that the latter view was supported by
the better reasoning and the vreight of euthority and reversed the judgment for
the plaintiff who was injured ~hile being conveyed, ~ith o number of other
children, from a svimming pool operated by the village, vhich also provided
transportation to and from the pool, located about eight miles outside the village
limits. The opinion of the court was not unanimous, hovever, as Justices Herrick
end Farthing dissented, saying: "We do not think that this is a governmental
function." My om view is that the better rensoning supports the latter vier.

 

To summarize?

In the operation of a natatorium or swimming pool for profit, the
operator is bound by the ordinary rules of negligence. It is his duty to be
reasonably sure thet he is not inviting patrons into danger and to exercise
ordinary care for their safety. het constitutes the exercise of ordinary care
varies with the situation and circumstances of each particular case. Regard
mist be had for the foir adeptability of the contrivances ehd facilities for
their customary or reasonably anticipated use. This involves the duty of being
diligent to seo that the water in the pool is of sufficient depth to make it
reasonably safe for the purpose, or if it be unsafe for that svort with the
use of the facilities furnished, there rrises the duty to warn or caution patrons
by signs or othervfise of the hezards, particulnrly of eny latent or hidden
condition of danger, ond injuries sustained in consequence of a failure to per-
form this duty are compensable. This gros out of the general rule of
negligence that where a person provides accommodations of » public nature, he is
required to use reasonable care and diligence in furnishing end maintaining such
accommodations in a reasonably snfe condition for the purpose for “hich they are
apparently designed and to which they are adnnted. If, for any reason, the
accommodations are not reasonably safe and suitable for the purposes for which
they are ordinarily used in » customary vay, then the public should be excluded
entirely, or appropriate notice of the unsafe and unsuitable condition should be
given end persons varned of the dongers in using them,
39,

"THE PROMOTION OF A YEAR ROUND SWIMMING PROGRAM"

By
A, ®. Murphy, Assistent Director
of First Aid ond Water Safety, Midvest Division American
Red Cross

The roll that the nations number one recreation plays in
a communities health end social recreational activitics is a subject which
can be properly emphasized only by a person rho has had the opportunity to
study such problems on a broad scope. Through his activities with the
American Red Cross, Mr, Murphy has hed such an opportunity and has been in
& position to bring out the real importance that swimming plays in our
everyday life.
40,
"THE PROMOTION OF A YEAR ROUND SWIMMING PROGRAM"
By
&. B. Murphy, Assistant Director of
First Aid end Water Safety, Midwest Bivision American
Red Cross

The American Red Cross has been making Water Safety its business
since 1914, hen it started the pioneer national movement in this field. Since
the beginning of this educational activity drornings in the United States have
been reduced about 46% elthough the increase in the swimming vublic has been
bettor than 400% along vith a population increase of 12% the past ten years,
Forever, the one dark spot. in this otherwise hopeful picture is the number of
people ho annually lose their lives by drovning (some 7,000) and the thousands
“ho manage to survive o terrifying experience of a near-veter tragedy.

Within the past few years and with amazing rapidity, ell
regulated facilities have brought swimming into its ov™m as Ameriéa's number one
recreation, Swimming is no longer that adventuresome pastime of small boys in
the old swimming hole as nearly every commnity now has well equipped pools and
benches. The reason for this popular growth in healthful exercise is more and
more Mother, Father, Sister, Broth r end even Grandina have been learning to
enjoy aquatic activity sefcly. In viewing these facts it is not surprising that
the annual toll in vater tragedics and the experiences of near-dromings have had
no effect in putting a damper on the enthusiasm of literally millions of persons
who teke to the vater annually.

The Red Cross Water Safety Service has grown from a membership
of one in 1914 to about a million life severs nov holding certificates. In
addition, there are the countless thousands of beginners who have learned to swim
through regular programs conducted by local Red Cross Chapters. Other great
nationel orgenizations, such as the Scouts and the Y's closely cooperate with
the Red Cross in promoting Aquatic Safety Education.

Let us consider briefly the manner of operation of Red Cross
Water Safety Programs. The National Headquarters are in Washington, D.C. From
there the 48 states are divided into three areas for the 3,700 chapters. The
Eastern Area, with 24 states, operates from Washington. The Midwestern Area,
vith 17 states, has headquarters at St. Louis, Missouri, and the Pacific Area,
vith 7 states, operates from San Francisco. Within the Midwestern Area, of
“hich Illinois is a part, there are 1,560 Red Cross Chapters and of that number
about 565 have reported activity in promoting Water Safety Programs. The State
of Illinois has 126 chapters of which 59 have reported as carrying Red Cross
aquatic activity.

Under the Life Saving Program some 81,000 people have been trained
in Illinois the past six years. A break-down of this number show 10,288 with
Senior Life Saving Certificates. 12,165 Juniors, 35,255 Beginners, 20,252
Swimmers and 2,029 Examiners. However, under the broadened program of Life Saving
end Water Life Saving «nd Water Safety Certificates since last September there
are over 300, 200 Senior and 180 Junior Certificate holders in Illinois,

In order to keep abrenst of the trends in increased facilities
end to keep pace vith the enormous increase in interest in swimming, the Red
Cross last year released a 262 page textook on Life Saving and Vater Safety.
This year a 266 page textbook on Svimming end Diving has been introduced ond
received public acclaim. Naturally this nev material has brought about the
broadening of Red Cross aquatic activity to include definite teaching material for
swimming courses and Life Saving and Vater Safety Programs.

To further cut the drowning rete and to improve svimming standards,
the Red Cross stresses skillful and intelligent participation in aquatics to
escope the misery and sorrow thnt often characterizes ill-considered and unskilled
performance, Water Safety education is that phase of education ~hich has as its
objective the prevention of accidents. In accomplishing this objective carefully
41.
selected community leadership is trained through regular Water Safety Instructor
Courses conducted by special Red Cross revresentatives for the chapter or through
attendance at one of the National Aquatic Schools. Men end women at least 18
vears of age in sound health and physical condition may qualify as instructors
to relay knowledge and skills learned to thousandsof people. The objectives thus
accomplished in communities with this type of trained leadership are:

1. Teaching non-svimmers how to swim.
. Teaching swimming beyond the beginner level.
. Teaching common sefety factors in small craft handling.
. Teaching life saving in all its forms,
« Teaching water safety in all its phases.
. The promotion of water safety.

oOo w wu

In promoting your swimming program let us consider vou have your
a end qualified leadership. Beyond that, however, we know there are some
eturel teachers who meke e success of their work beceuse of certain personal
jean joined with a keen interest end some initiative to adjust their
teaching to the individual. Beneldae of swimming is made easier, of course, when
the staff is properly organized, sufficient equipment available, and the pool or
beach so arranged as to facilitate teaching, Your leadership needs to maintain an
atmosphere of cheerfulness, to develop infinite patience and to be encouraging
at all times. Once the pupil understands thet you understand his point of view
and are Sympathetic you gain his confidence, Be careful never to frighten a
veginner, Swimming affords exceptional opportunity to inculcate the ideals of
courege, sclf-confidence, leadership, good sportsmanship end self-sacrifice. The
highest ideals of physicel education should alvays be mrintained through your
swimming methods whatever they are, Think of your teaching in the light of
teaching citizenship. In maintaining these iderls swimming affords an excellent
opportunity to teach proper herlth habits.

The learning phases of functional skills in progressive order

for the Red Cross Beginner Svrimming Courses ore:
Careful adjustment to water.
Breath holding.
Rhythmic breathing,
Seeing under water,
Elementary use of buoyancy.
Prone floating.
Jellyfish float.
Getting off end on your feet,
. Propulsive movement.
Changing position,
ll. Coordinated stroking,
12. Methods of entering the water.
13. Safety skills for,
a. Release of cramp
bv. Assisting - non-svimmer to his feet
ce. Reaching assistance.

The intermediate swimming course develops individual swimming
ond diving skills. Emphasis is placed largely on mastering three types of leg
and erm stroking movements. Successful completion of the Beginner end the
Intermediate Swimming Courses qualified one for the reguler certificate.

In the svimmer swimming course the pupil is to master a series of
swimming styles, The emphasis is placed on coordinetion of parts into whole strokes
for the purpose of developing increased ease, balance, endurance and versatility
in the water. In this course the practice sessions begins to change. Mass drill
is still given in propulsive movements, plain diving and so forth, but the major
part of the class period is divided between individual instruction and individual
practice until the pupil establishes the proper relationship of arm strokes, leg
strokes end breathing, Tho successful completion of the course also qualifies
the punil for the Red Cross Swimmer Certificate.

OOAONONAANH

pe
©
42.

To complete the Advanced Swimmer course one has merely to develop
out of the three basic styles, six others that are but variations, and add to
them some miscellaneous water skills which vill meke of him an all-around
swimmer. No pupil may quelify for an Advanced Svimmer Certificate unless he
has taken and passed either the Junior or Senior Life Saving and Water Safety
Course, It is out belief that this course ill be of material assistance to high
schools and colleges in conducting a full term or semester assistance to high
schools and colleges in conducting a full term or semester swimming program.
Successful completion of the course also entitles the pupil to the Advanced
Svimmer Certificate.

The general content of Junior end Senior Life, Saving end Water
Safety shovs that the original concept of Life Saving has changed materially.
Water Safety is primarily based upon kmorledge not to be acquired haphazardly
and to be taught as a part of Life Saving. Personel safety and self-rescue
skills heve a new importance. An instructor who has conscientiously followed
the outline is priviledged to qualify a pupil as e Junior or Senior who should
be ouite capable of teking care of himself and have the ability to aid or
rescue anyone in danger of drowning by the best and safest method applying to
the situaction,

In the courses of swimming,Life Saving and Tater Safety only
quelified and authorized Red Cross %ter Safety Instructors may conduct the courses
for Red Cross certificates.

An individual who fails to surround himself with the knowledge
provided in a Water Safety Education Course but persists in a career of chance-
taking in and about the veter obviously is gembling with his life, An aquatic
accident, logically, is not en accident when it is the manifestation of un-
necessary chancc, the result of which mst surely lead to casualty. Thus the
Red Cross dedicates itself anew in helping to meke our communities safer and
happier ones for the enjoyment of America's number 1 recreation, swimming.

Lest ve regret!