Wilkins v. Warren, 525
| Decision Date | 29 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 525,525 |
| Citation | 108 S.E.2d 230,250 N.C. 217 |
| Parties | Allen B. WILKINS v. Earl WARREN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Wilson & Johnson and Bryan & Bryan, Dunn, for plaintiff, appellee.
McLeod & McLeod, Dunn, for defendant, appellant.
Defendant rightly concedes that plaintiff was an invitee. Hahn v. Perkins, 228 N.C. 727, 46 S.E.2d 854.
In 52 Am.Jur., Theaters, Shows, Exhibitions, etc., § 71, the general rule is stated in these words: 'The owner or proprietor of a bathing or swimming resort or pool as a place of public amusement is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons, but he must exercise ordinary and reasonable care and prudence to have and maintain his place and all appliances intended for the use of patrons in a reasonably safe condition for all ordinary, customary, and reasonable uses to which they may be put by patrons, and to use ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of his patrons, and he may be liable for injury to a patron from breach of his duty.' To like effect: 86 C.J.S. Theaters and Shows § 41; Hiatt v. Ritter, 223 N.C. 262, 25 S.E.2d 756; Hahn v. Perkins, supra; Annotation: 'Liability of private owner or operator of bathing resort or swimming pool for injury or death of patron.' 48 A.L.R.2d 104-171.
In Hiatt v. Ritter, supra, this Court, in opinion by Denny, J., quoted with approval this statement from 26 R.C.L., Theaters, Shows, etc., § 20: 'Where a party maintains a bath house or a diving or swimming place for the use of the public for hire, and negligently permits any portion of the same or its appurtenances, whether in the house or of the depth of the water or in the condition of the bottom or in things thereon, to be in an unsafe condition for its use in the manner in which it is apparently designed to be used, a duty imposed by law is thereby violated; and if an injury to another proximately results from the proper use of the same without contributory negligence, a recovery of compensatory damages may be had.' [223 N.C. 262, 25 S.E.2d 757.]
Appellant relies principally on Richardson v. Ritter, 197 N.C. 108, 147 S.E. 676, and Hiatt v. Ritter, supra; but these cases are factually distinguishable.
In Richardson's case, the plaintiff dived into shallow water and was injured when his head struck the concrete bottom of the pool.
In Hiatt's case, the alleged underwater hazard was a bolt, which fastened a brace that supported a slide board and protruded approximately 3/4 of an inch beyond the nut. The plaintiff, instead of going down the slide and getting off at the end in the usual and customary manner, elected to jump off of the side of the slide board and in so doing his foot was hurt when it came into contact with the protruding end of the bolt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.
...not err. The degree of care that the proprietor of a swimming facility owes his customers is well summarized in Wilkins v. Warren, 250 N.C. 217, 219, 108 S.E.2d 230, 232 (1959), where our Supreme Court '. . . the general rule is stated in these words: 'The owner or proprietor of a bathing o......
-
Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.
...The duty imposed on the owner or proprietor of a swimming facility used for public amusement is stated generally in Wilkins v. Warren, 250 N.C. 217, 108 S.E.2d 230 (1959). The owner is not 'an insurer of the safety of his patrons' but he must exercise 'ordinary and reasonable care' for thei......