34,
the verdice for the plaintiff was there sustained on the ground that lack of
Signs designating the various depths of the water, and failure to provide for
guards, constituted sufficient basis on which to preducate liability for negli-
gence. But in this opinion it is pointed out that it was not established that
the alleged negligence was the promimate cause of the death,

The rule thet proprietors of a bathing resort, in discharging the duty
of ordinary care for the safety of patrons, may be obliged to keep some one on
duty to supervise bathers and rescue any apparently in danger and may also be
held liable for negligence if, on information that a bather is missing, they
are tardy in instituting search, was approved in Lyman v. Hall (1928) 117 Neb.
140, 219 N,W, 902, although the evidence was held insufficient to sustain a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, proprietor of a public
bathing pool conducted for nrivate gain, where it appeared that there were signs
indicating the depth of the water; that there ware lifeboats near the bathhouse
equipped with ours, rope end grappling hook, upon which there was a sign "For
emergencies only; "that the defendant head two employees who were qualified to
act in the capacity of guards, who were on active duty at the time of the
accidental drowning, and, at the first alarm one of the guards, who had been
attentively watching the pool at the proper vlace for rescue when the bather
disappeared, ren to the life boat end rowed to the natural place to look for a
missing swimmer and began to cast with grappling hooks and, upon being told the
boy was farther north, moved to the center of the pool, where the second cast
resulted in bringing the boy's body to the surface; and that efforts at
resusication were immediately made and were continued without avail for an hour
or more and notwithstanding the fact that the proprietor had not equipped his
life-boat or bathing resort with a pulmotor, a modern instrument used in the
work of resuscitation, where it appeared that the guards used standard methods of
equal efficiency and that a physician arrived within a few minutes and used
restoratives without success and testified that, in his opinion, the result would
have been the same had a pulmotor been used. The court nevertheless approved
the rule that failure to place and maintain v~arning signs or notices indicating
the depths of water in different parts of a public bathing pool conducted for
private gain may be evidence of negligence and added that not only is it the
duty of owners of bathing resorts to be prepared to rescue those who may get
into danger while bathing, but it is their duty to act with promptness end make
every reasonable effort to search for end if possible recover those who are known
to be missing,

In Nordgren v, Strong (1930) 110 Conn.593, 149 A, 201, it was held
to be a question for the jury as to whether one owning and operating a vublic
resort with bathing facilities must, in the exercise of reasonable care, have
a suitable person and necessary appliances ready to effect rescues end save
patrons from drowning, Those using the swimming facilities of a public resort
which made no charge for such facilities, but relied for its income on the
menting of bathing suits, lockers and boats end the selling of refreshments,
were held to be patrons entitled to reasonable care for their safety, even tho
they paid nothing to the operator of the resort.

In Adams, v. American Enka Corp. (1932) 202 NC 767,164 S.E. 367,
the court quoted the rule herein above mentioned as to the duty of supervising
and rescuring bathers, but held it inapplicable where the bather vas a gratuitious
licensee of a manufacturing company which had constructed a lake for manufacturing
purposes and permitted the public to swim in it,

In Blackwell v. Omaha Athletic Club (1932) 123 Neb, 332, 242 N.W.664,
where the plaintiff, who went to the assistance of enother swimmer in need of
help, was injured when a life guard. believing her to be in difficulty, jerked
her and pulled her over the bank of the pool, the court, in holding that a
finding was warranted that the life guard was guilty of negligence for which
the proprietor of the pool vas liable, said: "Proprietors of bathing resorts of
pools, in discharging their duty tomard their pstrons and guests, are not only
under obligation to keep an attendant or life guard on hand to supervise and