X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Rather than let a hard case make bad law, a split New Jersey Supreme Court stuck to the facts Dec. 23, ruling that homeowners had no duty to warn a guest about the risks of diving into a backyard swimming pool he admitted using frequently and knowing of its deep and shallow areas. The court held that the limited duty of hosts to warn social guests of dangerous conditions on their property did not extend to Paul Tighe, who broke his neck on Aug. 16, 1996, when he dove into his sister-in-law’s Sicklerville, N.J., pool, misjudged the slope and struck his head on the bottom. “It defies notions of reasonableness to regard plaintiff as being unaware of [sic] slope of the pool bottom, or to conclude he could not reasonably have detected it from his use of the pool that day and on the many occasions before,” the 4-3 majority ruled per curiam in Tighe v. Peterson, A-103-2001. Tighe, who became a paraplegic in the accident, admitted in a deposition that he had used the pool on about 20 prior occasions, that he knew the deep end from the shallow and that he was aware it was risky to dive into the shallow part. “Well, I know it’s not right to dive into the shallow end of a pool, I mean it was common sense,” he stated. Tighe, then 29, testified that he was “horsing around” at the time. Affirming dismissal of the suit on summary judgment, the majority declined to lay down a bright-line rule that swimming pool owners have a duty to protect guests by marking off changes in pool depth in order to protect divers from injury. The majority also noted the absence of “any evidence that defendants encouraged a dangerous use of this pool.” Dissenting Justices Virginia Long, James Zazzali and Barry Albin, on the other hand, found that the risk of harm was so great and the effort needed to protect against the harm — painting depth marks or “no diving” signs — was so minor that “notions of basic fairness impose a duty on pool owners to take such protective measures.” Whether Tighe’s own conduct should bar or limit his recovery was a question that should be left to a jury, wrote Long for the dissenters. The court embraced the reasoning of Appellate Division Judge Michael King, who authored the opinion below. King relied on Restatement of Torts 2d �342, which the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted in Berger v. Shapiro, 30 N.J. 89 (1959). That section makes landowners liable for known dangerous conditions only where the injured persons “do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.” King, joined by Judge Mary Cuff, wrote, “This was not a case where plaintiff was unaware of an obscure peril.” He also distinguished the most recent precedent on the liability of social hosts for swimming pool injuries, Vallillo v. Muskin, 218 N.J. Super. 472 (1987), which found a jury issue on liability. The swimming pool owner in Vallillo not only encouraged diving into an aboveground pool that was only 4 feet deep, but built a deck for diving that covered up a sign on the side of the pool that warned against diving, King pointed out. In Tighe, defendant Theodore Peterson, whose wife, Deborah, was Tighe’s sister-in-law, had installed the in-ground pool eight years earlier, using a pool kit. The 16-by-32-foot pool ranged from 3 feet at the shallow end to 7 1/2 feet at the deep end. There were no depth markers, no rope separating the deep and shallow portions or anything else indicating the depth of the water or cautioning against diving. Peterson testified at deposition that the kit came with no markers. Last week’s split in the New Jersey Supreme Court mirrored that of the appeals court below, where Judge Barbara Byrd Wecker dissented from the 2-1 ruling. Wecker stated, “I would allow a jury to determine whether defendants failed to exercise reasonable care when they built a pool without any depth or slope markers, and if so, whether that condition was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.” Long followed that rationale in her dissent last week. Tighe’s complaint also listed the maker and seller of the pool kit as John Doe defendants, but Peterson was not able to identify them and they never became part of the case. Though diving accidents are far less frequent than auto accidents, they tend to generate million-dollar recoveries because they result in death or permanent incapacitating injury, like quadriplegia or paraplegia. For example, earlier this year, an Ocean County, N.J., case by the family of a 12-year-old boy injured diving into a pool at a church-run social at a private home settled for $3 million. Gaudenzi v. Doucette, L-974-98. In 1996, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld an $8.7 million award to a 21-year-old athlete rendered a quadriplegic by diving. Kleban v. Heldor, A-923094T2. Tighe has regained some use of his limbs because he did not sever his spine and received prompt, effective treatment, says his attorney, Louis Cappelli Jr. A homeowner, like Peterson, who also installs a pool has an “absolute duty to all who swim in the pool,” says Cappelli, a Collingswood, N.J., solo practitioner. “Where [Camden County] Judge [John] Mariano erred was in finding my client contributorily negligent,” he adds. William Lundgren III, a partner with Cherry Hill, N.J.’s Green, Lundgren & Ryan who represents the Petersons, could not be reached for comment last week.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.