Beaman v. Grooms

• Decision Date: 27 October 1917
• Citation: 197 S.W. 1090,138 Tenn. 320
• Parties: BEAMAN ET AL. v. GROOMS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

197 S.W. 1090

138 Tenn. 320

BEAMAN ET AL. v. GROOMS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 27, 1917

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Action by W. J. Grooms against Mary J. Beaman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring certiorari. Reversed with directions.

WILLIAMS J.

This is suit for the alleged wrongful death of Raymond Grooms, a young man 21 years of age, who was drowned in a body of water known as Beaman's Lake. The owners and lessors of the premises on which the lake was (the Beamans) and the lessee thereof (Brown) were made defendants.

The gravamen of the action is negligence of defendants in the maintenance of the lake or pond while it was held out to and used by the public as a resort for bathing purposes. It is alleged, and the facts appear to be that the lake was of uneven depths. Several feet from the bank there was a depth of 12 feet of water, and at places along the edge of this depth there was a sharp decline in the bottom which made it dangerous for one unaccustomed to swimming to venture that far out.

The lake was located on a farm of 117 acres near the city of Knoxville, but it covered an area of only 3 or 4 acres. It was first leased for one year, under a verbal contract, by the owners to Brown in May, 1914. That year the lessee's father operated a bathing establishment on a small scale, but with enough success to encourage the lessee to attempt a development in the erection of bathhouses and an operation on a larger scale on his own account in the season of 1915, if a renewal of his lease of the farm could be secured.

The owners were aware of the use made of the lake in 1914 and of the lessee's plan, and having originally let the premises for use as a poultry farm they objected to it, and declined to renew for the year beginning May, 1915, until Brown agreed to plant posts in the water and suspend thereon guard ropes to show where the deeper water set in, also to maintain guards, boats, and take all precautions necessary to a conduct of the business safe for the patrons. Brown agreed to this; and he did in fact go far towards compliance before he began business in the season of 1915. A charge was made for the use of bathing suits and the privilege of bathing in the lake.

On the day of the drowning of deceased, Sunday, August 1, 1915, 20 posts had been driven at a distance from each other of 20 to 30 feet, and a rope was stretched thereon. Three guards were in service, and a rowboat was on the water. A crowd of 250 to 300 persons were in bathing, among them young Grooms and a young lady. A number of University boys had been or were at the time in the water bent on "a good time." These young men in some way detached the rope from a part of the posts, and in a few moments thereafter Grooms, who seems to have been teaching the young woman to swim, though he could not swim himself, ventured out towards the lines and got beyond into the deeper water, where the two went down. The young woman was rescued, but Grooms sank 12 feet to the bottom and was beyond resuscitation when his body was found and taken to shore. The rope had been intact prior to this except that it sagged at places below the surface of the water; and the posts were standing, except that 2 or 3 at some previous time had been broken off below the water after their original placement--whether at the place Grooms passed the lines is not shown. It was customary for permission to be given to experienced swimmers to go beyond the lines; others thought not to be were warned on this occasion by calls made by guards, but it does not appear that Grooms or his companion heard these warnings.

The farm was leased for the same rental sum in 1914 and 1915--$150 per annum.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the deceased's personal representative, after a motion for peremptory instructions in favor of defendants had been overruled by the trial judge. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed a judgment rendered on the verdict.

Brown the lessee and proprietor of the resort, has not petitioned for a review, but the lessors have filed a petition for certiorari which has been granted; and the cause has been argued at the bar of this court. The assignments of error are sufficiently indicated by what is said in the discussion which follows.

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. Larkin v. Saltair Beach Co., 30 Utah, 86, 83 P. 686, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 982, 116 Am. St. Rep. 818, 8 Ann. Cas. 977; McKinney v. Adams, 68 Fla. 208, 66 So. 988, L. R. A. 1915D, 442, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 326, and notes.

While the question in this case is as to the liability of one who leased the pond to such a proprietor, the measure of duty upon the lessee must play a part in its solution.

How far does the fact that the pond was in use as a public resort affect the question of liability?

While, so far as the basic question of the imposition of the duty on a landlord to know the condition of the premises he leases is concerned, no distinction can be made between private and public buildings or premises (Willcox v. Hines, 100 Tenn. 538, 557, 46 S.W. 297, 41 L. R. A. 278, 66 Am. St. Rep. 770; Edwards v. N. Y., etc., R. Co., 98 N.Y. 245, 50 Am. Rep. 659), it seems to be fair and reasonable to hold that due care on his part calls for greater exertion in the case of premises intended for use by the public than when they are let for purely private purposes (Notes 92 Am. St. Rep. 515, and L. R. A. 1916F, 1123).

In our opinion the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not holding with the lessors on one of two grounds of defense, either of which is decisive of the case.

(a) In our opinion the duty and liability of the landlords must be tested by the condition of the premises, as dangerous or not, at the time the lease was renewed in May, 1915. When the former term expired at that time, they in legal contemplation reentered; and if they again demised with a dangerous situation existing on the premises they would be liable, nothing else appearing.

When the...