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.