Fletcher v. Hale
Citation | 548 So.2d 135 |
Parties | Marie FLETCHER, as mother and personal representative of the Estate of Demetrius Fletcher, deceased v. Douglas V. HALE, et al. 88-564. |
Decision Date | 26 May 1989 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Stuart E. Smith of Watson, Gammons & Fees, Huntsville, for appellant.
James E. Davis, Jr. and Rennie S. Moody of Lanier, Ford, Shaver & Payne, Huntsville, for appellees.
Marie Fletcher appeals from a summary judgment for Douglas V. Hale and Danny Haswell, the sole remaining defendants 1 in Ms. Fletcher's suit to recover damages for the drowning death of her 10-year-old daughter, Demetrius. Demetrius drowned in a swimming pool at an apartment complex owned by Hale. Haswell was the maintenance supervisor at the apartment complex.
The trial court, after considering all affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions of fact filed by the parties, entered the following final judgment:
Hale was the owner of University Parke Apartments and the possessor of the common areas, including the pools of that apartment complex, when 10-year-old Demetrius trespassed by entering the pool area during the early afternoon of a midsummer day. Hale had employed Haswell, who was a trained pool operator with a certificate of competency from the health department, and among Haswell's duties was "the close supervision" of the swimming pool.
In Motes v. Matthews, 497 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Ala.1986), we held:
Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all reasonable doubts against the defendants, which our standard of review mandates when the trial court has entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants (Motes v. Matthews, supra, at 1123), we find that the trial court had the following facts before it at the time it granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment:
The swimming pool was an artificial condition upon Hale's land. Hale had reason to know that such a pool, located at 1313 Boxwood, in Huntsville, Alabama, would be a place that children would likely trespass during the early afternoon of a midsummer's day. On occasions prior to the day on which Demetrius drowned, Haswell, as Hale's employee, had observed children, who were not children of the tenants at University Parke Apartments, using the pool. The pool was 10 feet deep at the place where Demetrius's body was found.
The pool was a "public swimming pool" subject to the "Swimming Pool Recommendations" issued by the Bureau of Environmental Health of the Alabama State Department of Health. 2 Among those recommendations are the following:
The pool was also subject to the "Regulations Governing the Construction, Equipment and Operation of Public Swimming Pools" promulgated by the Madison County Board of Health, and those Regulations contain the following provisions applicable to pools at apartment houses:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laster v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Inc., 1050532.
...poses a danger to children." Oden v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Decatur, Inc., 621 So.2d 953, 961 n. 5 (Ala.1993) (citing Fletcher v. Hale, 548 So.2d 135 (Ala.1989), and Lyle v. Bouler, 547 So.2d 506 Motes held that the conventional duty of care recited in Beam is "not applicable ... except......
-
Pino v. Szuch, 19775
...it is on the child. Several courts use similar age groupings when assessing a child's capacity to be negligent. See, e.g., Fletcher v. Hale, 548 So.2d 135 (Ala.1989); Friedman v. Park Dist. of Highland Park, 151 Ill.App.3d 374, 104 Ill.Dec. 329, 502 N.E.2d 826 (1986); Hoots v. Beeson, 272 N......
-
Oden v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Decatur, Inc.
...to his behavior. Pepsi argues that the trial court could have properly found that Mark was of sufficient maturity. In Fletcher v. Hale, 548 So.2d 135, 138 (Ala.1989), the Court quoted Justice Bloodworth's opinion in King v. South, 352 So.2d 1346, 1347 "It has long been the law in Alabama th......
-
Laster v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Inc., No. 1050532 (Ala. 1/5/2007)
...a danger to children." Oden v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Decatur, Inc., 621 So. 2d 953, 961 n. 5 (Ala. 1993) (citing Fletcher v. Hale, 548 So. 2d 135 (Ala. 1989), and Lyle v. Bouler, 547 So. 2d 506 (Ala. Motes held that the conventional duty of care recited in Beam is "not applicable ... e......