Tom, a teenager, is mucking around with some friends at the Rocky Municipal Pool. The boys are running around, shouting and throwing tennis balls at each other. The pool's supervisor is busy chatting to some girls at the other end of the pool. Large signs displayed around the pool proclaim “NO RUNNING OR DIVING. Pool edges slippery when wet.” Suddenly, Tom slips on the tiles surrounding the pool, twists his ankle, and falls into the pool, hitting his head on the edge and suffering serious injuries. Tom sues the pool owner (the Council) in negligence. Evidence shows that the tiles used next to the pool are particularly slippery when wet, and that other types of tiles or waterproof carpet (at considerably more expense) would prevent the edge being slippery. Discuss the Council's liability, ignoring any defences it may have.
The council breached its duty of care in that it was negligent through failing to adequately supervise its visitors. Would that sufficiently constitute liability?
2007-06-19 05:54:24 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
So the fact that the council has warning signs displayed, it negates any liability on the council's part, since a reasonable person should be aware of the possible consequences of their actions by breaching their duty to adhere to those rules?
Or would the council still be held liable, but there would be significant apportionment of damages b/c of the plaintiff's negligence?
not 100% sure but i'm inclined to agree with the former.
2007-06-19 16:27:20 · update #1
So the fact that the council has warning signs displayed, it negates any liability on the council's part, since a reasonable person should be aware of the possible consequences of their actions by breaching their duty to adhere to those rules?yy
Or would the council still be held liable, but there would be significant apportionment of damages b/c of the plaintiff's negligence?
not 100% sure but i'm inclined to agree with the former.
2007-06-19 16:31:46 · update #2
So Tom has no duty to obey the pool rules? Only if the supervisor tells him to? Whose negligence was the proximate cause of the slip and fall? The supervisor's negligence would be unavailing if Tom had obeyed the rules. And if Tom's parents were around, what of their negligence? If they weren't around, and knew he had a propensity to disobey pool rules?
A nice law exam question. No easy answers, but lots of possibilities.
2007-06-19 06:03:49 · answer #1 · answered by thylawyer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if the tiles were more slippery than most, a reasonable teenager would know that there is danger inherent in running around a pool, and one of those dangers is slipping on wet tile. In addition to the notices posted, the council's liability should be reduced if not eliminated.
2007-06-19 05:58:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Having the swimming pool in itself is a liability so if you want to charge the public, (Or not even charge but allow the public) to use the pool, the administrators must purchase an adequate insurance policy and maintain the safety of all individuals using the pool. If the kids broke in to the pool and picked the locks and came in and hurt themself, then it would be a different story.
2007-06-19 06:03:08 · answer #3 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pool had the signs up, Tom is in the wrong.
2007-06-19 05:58:33 · answer #4 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Texas you might be out of luck, because you cannot sue a municipality for negligence in most situations.
2007-06-19 06:33:46 · answer #5 · answered by Billy M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all I could say is strict criminal accountability.... seem it up. it sparkling states that break of day would not could teach negligence, fault or motive on Mary's section for leavig the hose on the backyard, all she desires to teach it that it became Mary's hose that brought about the wear
2016-10-18 01:04:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋