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."