The blog “Unsurprising Swimming Pool Accidents” mentioned that it is harder to prove liability in swimming pool accidents in California than in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Utah.
While it may be true, let me clarify and/or add some points to the no nonsense blog one of my colleagues expounded.
It is true that the State of California did away with the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The doctrine is commonly applied to cases of drowning, near drowning or any drowning related accidents among children of tender years. But it can also be applied to some implements, machineries and equipments, even places that attract children to play in and around them – then the accident happened.
In swimming pool accidents in particular, the doctrine connotes a scenario wherein a child either trespasses or somehow came near around or in the pool where the accident took place – without the knowledge or permission from the owner. The doctrine holds such property owner/possessor liable to such child.
The doctrine can be hardly applied when the accident took place, say in water theme parks and swimming pool resorts as they are generally intended and designed to be attractive to children. Thus, one’s action will no longer be properly based on the doctrine of attractive nuisance.
However, as the blog mentioned above wittingly provides, liability can still exist and can be established using at least three concepts of law, to wit: Premise liability, product liability and general principle of negligence.
A claim for premise liability may ensue in instances when there is a violation of a state regulation requiring that pools or any place containing certain level of water be enclosed, fenced, etc.
Product liability, on the other hand, can be pursued against parties who incorrectly or defectively installed and manufacture pool designs which cause the accident. There were reported cases of pool accidents involving drains which can entrap hair and other body parts which resulted to serious bodily injury, even wrongful death thru drowning.
Lastly, negligence may be invoked and established against property owners or possessors when the pool is without a life guard or unsupervised by a responsible adult, among others.