If a young child drowns in a lake, is the owner of the body of water liable? The owner of a body of water is not liable merely because a child may be too young or of insufficient intelligence to understand the open and obvious danger of the water; the responsibility for the care of such children remains with their parents and caretakers.
The body of water cases in the State of Florida are summarized by the recent opinion in GARY KENLEY v. INWOOD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., 4th District, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1739a.
By summary judgment, the trial court determined that defendant could not legally be held liable in money damages for a child who fell from a dock on a seawall into an open body of water covering sharp rocks. Among other things, plaintiff alleged that the property owner was negligent in failing to erect safety barriers and warnings. In affirming, we reject the father's contention that the "open and obvious" doctrine as applied to bodies of water is not applicable when the victim is a young child.The outcome in this case is yet another result of the rule applied in the line of cases represented by Saga Bay Property Owners Ass'n v. Askew, 513 So.2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). There the parents of a six year old child who drowned in an artificial lake near their home brought an action against the owners of the residential development in which the lake was located, alleging that the owners were negligent in failing to fence the area. The Third District held that the owners could not be held liable because "an owner of a natural or artificial body of water has no duty to fence it." 513 So.2d at 693. The court reasoned:"The fundamental proposition that drowning is a risk inherent in any body of water leads to some equally fundamental legal principles. The owner of a body of water is not liable merely because a child may be too young or of insufficient intelligence to understand the open and obvious danger of the water; the responsibility for the care of such children remains with their parents and caretakers. To shift the responsibility to the lake owner -- by virtue of ownership alone -- is to unreasonably require the owner to fill the lake or fence it in order to guard against being held liable." [e.s.]We see no way around these "body of water" cases. Florida is planted thick with masses of water, large and small, many touching towns, cities and residential developments from the very western tip of the Panhandle to the outermost island in the Keys. What the law might require for one lake or canal or river or pond must inevitably apply to all of them. The body of water rule has been around for more than a half-century. Any change or abandonment of the rule would have far-reaching effects in this state. Even though one might advocate a rule protecting young children who fall or walk into such bodies, it is up to the Legislature to make such a change.
The outcome in this case is yet another result of the rule applied in the line of cases represented by Saga Bay Property Owners Ass'n v. Askew, 513 So.2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). There the parents of a six year old child who drowned in an artificial lake near their home brought an action against the owners of the residential development in which the lake was located, alleging that the owners were negligent in failing to fence the area. The Third District held that the owners could not be held liable because "an owner of a natural or artificial body of water has no duty to fence it." 513 So.2d at 693. The court reasoned:
"The fundamental proposition that drowning is a risk inherent in any body of water leads to some equally fundamental legal principles. The owner of a body of water is not liable merely because a child may be too young or of insufficient intelligence to understand the open and obvious danger of the water; the responsibility for the care of such children remains with their parents and caretakers. To shift the responsibility to the lake owner -- by virtue of ownership alone -- is to unreasonably require the owner to fill the lake or fence it in order to guard against being held liable." [e.s.]
We see no way around these "body of water" cases. Florida is planted thick with masses of water, large and small, many touching towns, cities and residential developments from the very western tip of the Panhandle to the outermost island in the Keys. What the law might require for one lake or canal or river or pond must inevitably apply to all of them. The body of water rule has been around for more than a half-century. Any change or abandonment of the rule would have far-reaching effects in this state. Even though one might advocate a rule protecting young children who fall or walk into such bodies, it is up to the Legislature to make such a change.
Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader
Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.
Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.
Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.
A Georgia Lawyer
Atlanta Injury Law
Bob Kraft's P.I.S.S.D.
Brain Injury Law Blog
Brain Injury News & Information Blog
Day on Torts
Drug Injury Watch
Inter Alia
Kevin, M.D.
Mealey's Legal News
SaundersBlog
Social Security News
Taxponomy Of Legal Blogs
Tennessee Medical Malpractice Blog
The Duncan Firm
Wisconsin Personal Injury Blog
Find an InjuryBoard Blog in your area:
Alabama
Birmingham
Gadsden
Huntsville
Mobile
Montgomery
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Arizona
Chandler
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Tucson
Arkansas
Bentonville
El Dorado
Jonesboro
Little Rock
Mountain Home
California
Bakersfield
Chico
Fresno
Glendale
Huntington Beach
Lancaster
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Modesto
Novato
Oakland
Orange County
Redding
Sacramento
San Diego
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Jose
San Luis Obispo
Santa Clarita
Stockton
Ventura
Colorado
Colorado Springs
Denver
Fort Collins
Grand Junction
Connecticut
Hartford
New Haven
Waterbury
District of Columbia
Metro D.C.
Washington
Florida
Central Florida
Fort Lauderdale
Ft. Myers
Gainesville, Ocala & Daytona Beach
Jacksonville
Melbourne
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
Sarasota
Tallahassee
Tampa Bay
West Palm Beach
Georgia
Atlanta
Hawaii
Honolulu
Idaho
Boise
Illinois
Chicago
Chicago-Land
Cook County
Rockford & Moline
Springfield
Indiana
Bloomington
Indianapolis
Iowa
Council Bluffs
Davenport
Des Moines
Fort Dodge
Waterloo
Kansas
Topeka
Wichita
Kentucky
Bowling Green
Louisville
Paducah
Louisiana
Baton Rouge
Lafayette
New Orleans
Maine
Bangor & Augusta
Maryland
Baltimore
Massachusetts
Boston
Cape Cod
Stoughton / Canton
Michigan
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Traverse City
Minnesota
Minneapolis
St. Cloud
Mississippi
Biloxi & Gulfport
Tupelo
Missouri
Jefferson City
Kansas City
St. Louis
Montana
Missoula
Nebraska
Lincoln
Omaha
Nevada
Las Vegas
Reno
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Bergen County
Cherry Hill
Jersey City
Newark
Trenton
New York
Buffalo
Long Island
New York City
Northern New York
Syracuse
North Carolina
Charlotte
Fayetteville
Greensboro
Greenville, OBX & Rocky Mount
Raleigh
Wilmington
Ohio
Akron
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Findlay
Sandusky
Toledo
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Oregon
Portland
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Rhode Island
Providence
South Carolina
Charleston
Columbia
Florence / Myrtle Beach
Greenville
Spartanburg
Tennessee
Chattanooga
Nashville
Texas
Austin
Beaumont
Brownsville
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Galveston Bay
Houston
Laredo
McAllen
North Dallas
San Antonio
Tyler
Victoria
Waco
Utah
Salt Lake City
Vermont
Virginia
Charlottesville
Fairfax, Leesburg & Loudoun
Norfolk, Portsmouth & Hampton
Northern Virginia
Richmond
Roanoke
Virginia Beach, Chesapeake & Suffolk
Everett
King County
Olympia
Seattle
Tacoma
Vancouver
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
Wyoming
Cheyenne
Gadsden Insurance Settlements