336
might foresse the necessity of doing. Barrett v. Lake Ontario Beach Improv.
Go. (1903) 174 N.Y, 310, 61 L.R.A. 829, 66 NF, 968° 14 Am.Neg, Rep.144,

Where an amusement company maintained a pond in its park and»
charged an admission fee for bathing ond ‘swimming, it vas held in Decatur
Amasement Park Co. v. Porter (1907) 127 T1l.App.448, an action for the death
of a fourteen-year-old boy who was drowned in the pond, that the duty of. the
defendant was to make reasonable provision to guard against those accidents
which common knowledge and experience teach are likely to befall those engaged
in said sports and that it might be held liable for negligence if it failed to
have any attendant to render assistance, if necessary, to bathers, or failed
to mark in any way the depth of the water, which in portions of the pond was
alleged to be 10 feet deep. But it was held also that the mere failure of the
defendant to furnish an experienced swimmer and diver would not alone consti-
tute negligence, and that a cause of action was not stated by counts in the
declaration based solely on the assumption that it was actionable negligence
not'to have an experienced swimmer and diver to render aid to those heeding it.

In Thierry v. Oswell (1925) _. Ale. _, 102 So. 903, in an action
ageinst the proprietor of a public bathing and pleasure resort, to recover
damages for the drowning of plaintiff's minor child, a sixteen-year-old girl,
the court held that although the defendant may have been negligent in failing
to provide safeguards or warnings at a hole deredged out for deep water
Swimming and diving and immediately adjacent to shallower water used for
swimming, and notwithstanding said hole was so deep as to be dangerous to bath=
ers who could not swim, and that the defendant had noticed that the bathing
resort was patronized by children end others unable to swim, nevertheless,
if the decedent, although she did not knor 6f the existenre of the deep holé
described, was notified of the danger in time to have avoided the injury and
did not use ordinary care to avoid the danger, the plaintiff was not entitled
to recover,

In Blanchette v. Union Street R. Co. (1924) 248 Mass. 407, 143 N.E,
310, the court held that a company maintaining for hire a bathing house and
beach and in connection therewith a floating reft, with a chute or slide
thereon, to be used by the bathers to dive and slide into the vater, was bound
to use reasonable care in maintaining the accommodations for the purposes for
which they were apparently designed and to which they were adapted and if,
by reason of the shallowmess of the water, the chute and the water beneath it
were not reasonably safe for diving, it “as the duty of the company to warn
the plaintiff, as an invitee for hire, of the dangerous condition, in order
that he might be cognizant of the danger and a failure to perform this duty
vould be negligence for which the company would be responsible, unless the
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence or had assumed the risk
of the conditions. The court further said that although it was within the
right of the defendant to limit its obligation by a sign warning the users of
the chute that it was used at their risk, to have such effect the defendant
mst show that the invited persons had knowledge of the sign and that they
accepted the invitation, subject to the absence of eny duty of the owner and
invitor to warn of dangers which were not visible to ordinary inspection.

In an action for the death of a fourteen-year-—old boy who was
drowned in a swimming pool conducted for profit by the defendant, it was held
in Maher v. Madison Square Garden Cor . (1926) 242 N.Y, 506, 152 N.E, 403, re-
versing (192 215 App. Div.653, 212 N.Y, Supp.865, that the judgment for the
plaintiff should be reversed and the comaplaint dismissed, where it appeared
only that, although the pool was crowded at the time, spparently no one saw
the fatality and that all that was knorn was that the boy was playing in the
pool in the afternoon and that his dead body was found in another part of the
pool the next morning and that death was caused by asphyxiation. It was said
that no inference could be drawn that, by any act or omission of the defendant
or my of its employees, the boy was pleced in a position of danger which
caused his death, or thet any greater care by the defendant could have averted
the accident. From the dissenting opinion in the lover court, it annears that