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."