31.
number of competent attendents, The action was one for the death of a tvelve~
year-old boy by drowning in a swimming pool maintained by the defendant, where
it appeared that he had been playing about the pool and stumbled and fell into
it, striking his head against the edge of the pool of against & post and although
a good swimmer was so stunned by the blow that he could not extricate himself
and when taken from the pool about ten minutes later could not be resuscitated.
It was held that an instruction wes erroneous that if the jury believed from
the evidence that the defendant failed to provide skilled attendants at the pool
in sufficient numbers "to insure the safety of the patrons" of the pool and that
in such failure the defendant was guilty of negligence resulting in the death
in question, they should find for the plaintiff.

So, in Behrns v. Roth (1917) 204 Ill. App.328, notwithstanding there
vas much noise and shouting going on in a swimming pool from a large numbe# of
boys swimming, just before and at the time the deceased met his death therein,
the court held that the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of the
defendant in the equipment of operation of his natatorium, it appearing that
signs as to the depth of the water and warning signs es to safety had been
placed in the pool, that two life guards had been stationed there and that efforts
were promptly made by them to recover the deceased from the water and to resusci-
tate him. It was held that the evidence showed that the death was not due to
drorning but to organic disease.

Where it was customary to serve drinks in a bathing establishment,
including the room in which vas a swimming pool end a patron in attempting to
enter the pool was injured by placing his hand on a glass on the edge of the pool,
it was held that:there could be no recovery against the proprietor for the _
injury, there being nothing to show who placed the glass where it vas, or how
long it had remained there. Jones v. Levy (1906) 50 Misc. 624, 98 N.Y. Supp.
206. The court said also that the place vas brilliantly lighted and the glass
should have been, at least, as clearly visible to the plaintiff as to the
defendant's waiters.

In an action for injury to a bather by slipping upon smooth
concrete steps as he was attempting to enter a swimming tank, the proprietor of a
natatorium was, in Anderson v. Seattle Park Co. (1914) 79 Wash. 575, 140 Pac.
698, 6 N.C.C,A. 954 held not guilty of negligence, where it was show that
the steps were constructed in accordance with the universal custom of similar
natatoriums, thet they were scrubbed end washed with fresh water three times
a week, that bathers had used the steps constantly without falling end had never
found them in a slimy or dangerous condition. But the owner of a park in which
iS a swimming pool operated for hire and held out to the public as a suitable
place for swimming end diving may be held liable to one diving, who was injured .
by striking invisible timber under the Water. Bass v. Reitdorf,(1900) 25 Ind.
App. 650, 58 N.E, 95,

In Turlington v. Tama Electric Co. (1911) 62 Fla. 398, 38 L.R.A.
(Y.S,) 72, Ann, Cas. 1913D, 1213, 56 So.696, 1 N.C.C.A, 490, it was held that
a ceuse of action was stated by allegations in a declaration for damages for
the death of one drowned in the defendant's bathing establishment, to the
effect that the defendant maintained, as a part of his bathing house, a spring-
board for diving, which was about 3 or 4 feet above the water, that the depth
of the water underneath was, at average tide, about 24 to 34 feet decp; that
owing to the shallow water :the place was dangerous for those who restored there
for bathing and diving; that the defendant negligently suffered the same to
remain in this dangerous conditions that there was no sign indicating the depth
of the water, end that the decedent had no knowledge thereof; and that the
latter, having hired a bathing suit from the defendant, in the exercise of
due care, dived from the springboard and struck his head on the bottom of the
bay, sustaining injuries from which he died. It was contended in that case
that the allegations were merely to the effect that the defendant maintained a
springboard in good condition over a body of water 33 feet deop and that this