Lawson v. State of New York
| Decision Date | 24 March 1955 |
| Citation | 207 Misc. 542 |
| Parties | Albert P. Lawson, Claimant,<BR>v.<BR>State of New York, Defendant. (Claim No. 31525.) |
| Court | New York Court of Claims |
Joseph B. Murphy and Perry B. Rauch for claimant.
Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Harold S. Coyne of counsel), for defendant.
This is a claim for personal injuries sustained by the claimant on July 27, 1952, when he dove into the water within the swimming area at Selkirk State Park, which is located on the east shore of Lake Ontario. This park is owned and operated by the State of New York and is open to the general public as a resort.
The swimming area is designated by buoy lines extending northerly about seventy-five feet from a concrete pier. This pier was built by the State for public use in connection with the park, and was about three feet above the water level, fifteen feet wide, and extended westerly 200 feet into said lake. There was one combination diving platform and lifeguard station constructed and maintained near the end of the pier. Patrons used the easterly portion of the structure to dive from, with an adjacent seat for the lifeguard on its westerly side. There were two additional lifeguard stations on this pier — one located about one hundred feet from shore and the other near the shore. The diving platform located out in the lake near the end of the pier, was raised about six feet above the pier level and about eight and one-half feet above the surface of the water. There was a visible painted sign stating "Depth 6 feet" on the side of this structure. This sign was a sufficient warning and indication that the depth of the water was six feet in this diving area. It was from this platform that the claimant dove at the time of the accident.
On the day in question, the claimant with a party of friends arrived at the park in an automobile at about noon. After the owner of the automobile (Douglas Allen) purchased a parking ticket, the car was parked and the party went to the picnic area, and then prepared for a swim before lunch. The swimming before lunch was done close to the shore. After lunch, swimming was resumed about 3:30 P.M. It was Sunday afternoon, the sun was shining and generally the weather was ideal for recreation and swimming.
There is a great difference in the testimony of the witnesses for the claimant and the witnesses for the State as to the facts leading up to and after the accident. From the credible evidence presented, the court finds that shortly after 3:30 P.M., the claimant walked to the diving structure near the end of the pier and climbed up the ladder to the diving platform. He talked with the lifeguard who was seated next to the platform and asked him if it was all right for him to dive off the platform. The lifeguard answered: "Yes". As the claimant stood ready to dive about eight and one-half feet above the water level, he could not see the bottom because of waves and ripples. He dove into the lake making a shallow swan dive, landing in the water fifteen to twenty feet from the pier. He struck a sand bar which spread his hands apart and caused his head to strike the bar with such impact that the claimant became groggy, could not see and after rolling over in the water, he stood up. There was no sign or other warning of the presence of this bar and the lifeguard made no mention of it. At this point the level of the water was up to claimant's waist, or about three and one-half to four feet deep. He walked to the pier and climbed up out of the water without assistance. After getting back on the pier, claimant's sight was blurred, his nose was bleeding slightly, and it was discovered that a narrow strip of hair was scraped off the top of his head and this area was bleeding, with sand embedded in the wound. On the day of the accident, claimant was twenty-one years of age, six feet tall and weighed 215 pounds. He described himself as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herman v. State, 62036
...misleads patrons concerning water too shallow for diving or submerged obstructions, including sand bars. (Lawson v. State of New York, 207 Misc. 542, 139 N.Y.S.2d 525, affd. 1 A.D.2d 796, 149 N.Y.S.2d 258; Harrington v. State of New York, 33 Misc.2d 598, 227 N.Y.S.2d 467; Surmanek v. State ......
-
Herman v. State
...State of New York, 24 Misc.2d 102, 202 N.Y.S.2d 756; Casoni v. Town of Islip, 278 App.Div. 715, 103 N.Y.S.2d 435; Lawson v. State of New York, 207 Misc. 542, 139 N.Y.S.2d 525, affd. 1 A.D.2d 796, 149 N.Y.S.2d 258). However, the present controversy involves a natural as opposed to man-made h......
-
O'Loughlin v. State
...out its obligation to exercise a reasonable care to protect the infant claimant from known and foreseeable dangers. Lawson v. State, 207 Misc. 542, 139 N.Y.S.2d 525, affd. 1 A.D.2d 796, 149 N.Y.S.2d The Court finds that the claimants have failed to establish any negligence on the part of th......
-
Harrington v. State
...to warn against the obstruction constitutes negligence by the State. Roth v. State, 262 App.Div. 370, 29 N.Y.S.2d 442; Lawson v. State, 207 Misc. 542, 139 N.Y.S.2d 525; Piche v. State, 202 Misc. 84, 106 N.Y.S.2d 437; Violante v. State, Claim No. 35943, Court of Claims; Bensen v. Kristeller,......