30,
imposes upon keepers of public resorts generally for the protection of their
patrons, but the law imposes upon them the additional duty, when the character
end conditions of the resort are such that, because of deep water, or the
arising of sudden storms, or other causes, the bathers may get into danger, of
having in attendance some suitable person with the necessary appliances to
effect rescues, and save those who may meet with accident. Not only is it the
duty of the owners of bathing resorts to be prevared to rescue those who may
get into danger while in bathing, but it is their duty to act with promptness,
and make every reasonable effort to search for and if possible recover, those
who are known to be missing",

In that case it was held that the owner of a public bathing resort
might be found to be negligent, where he placed no signs as to the depth of the
water, or marks to indicate denger, and kept no one at hand to aid persons in
danger, end took no step to aid a person ectually in peril until too late to
be of any avail and in the case of Beaman v._Groons (1917) 138 Tenn. 320,

L.R.A, 1918 B, 305, 197 S.W, 1090, the court said? "The proprietor of a public
bathing resort may be found to be negligent in failing to place or properly
maintain signs as to the dangerous depths of the water, or marks to indicate
danger to his patrons,"

Other things being equal, the proprietor of a natatorium for profit,
to which the public are invited, oves a greater degree of care to a youth who
it knows cannot swim, and who is permitted to enter the pool, than to one who
it knows can swims in other ~ords, the ability to swim, or the lack of it, may be
an important factor in determining what is and whet is not ordinary care on
the part of such a proprietor, But in Henrod v. Gregson Hot Springs Co.

(1916) 52 Mont. 447, 158 Pac. 824, it was held that a non-suit was properly
entered in an action against a proprietor of a natatorium for profit, for the
death of a youth thirteen years old by drowrming in the pool, where it was
alleged that the water varied in depth from 3 to 6 feet, that the deceased was
about 4 feet 8 inches tall, was unable to swim and unable to take care of
himself in water over 3 feet deep and that these facts were known to the
defendant, who carelessly permitted the decessed to bathe in the pool for about
two hours without any person being present to watch after him: since, if it was
intended to charge negligence in permitting the deceased to remain in the pool
an unreasonable time, there was no causal connection between such negligence
and the injury and if the complaint intended to charge negligence in failing

to provide an attendant or guerd, based on the assumption that the deceased
could not swim, the case likewise failed, beceuse the evidence showed that an
attendant had asked him if he could swim end he had replied in the affirmative
and had demonstrated his ability in that respect, he court said this inquiry
wes directed to him in pursuance of a rule of the defendent which denied the
privileges of the natatorium to an unaccompanied minor who could not swim:

so that if it was true, as the plaintiff contended, that the youth could not
swim, he secured admission by misrepresentation as to a material fact, by reason
whereof he became a trespasser ab initio. The court said, also, that it was
not called upon to determine whether the rule of ordinary care required the
defendant to provide a life guard for the deceased without reference to his
ability to swim, as the complaint did not charge negligence in that particular
and the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the deceased was rightfully
in the pool and that his death resulted proximately from a breach of duty
which the defendant owed to him and with which it was charged in the complaint.

The proprietor of a bathing resort is not under the absolute duty
of providing skilled attendents in sufficient number to insure the safety of pa-
trons engaged in bathing: the duty is only to exercise ordinary care to provide
& reasonably sufficient number of competent attcndants for such purpose and
it wes held in Lovinski v, Cooper (1912) - Tex. Civ. App. 142 S,W,959,
that, under the statute in that state (which is not set out), the defendant in
conducting a swimming pool could not be held liable for the negligent ects of
his servants in that promptly rescuing a bather, but vas liable only for his
om individual acts of negligence, if any, in failing to provide a sufficient