v.
Ocean City SEACRETS, INCORPORATED; Leighton W. Moore, Jr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Top Four (4) Facts:
Fact1: Ocean City Seacrets had put the necessary precautions to guard against customers’ injuries, especially diving, which is relevant to the case in question; the defendant exercised the duty of care.
Reason fact is important: First off, it is clear that Ocean City Seacrets hosted many customers or rather invitees, the Mahons included; therefore, it owed them the duty of care. The necessary measures were taken to prevent guests from diving since the water was not suitable for diving. A total of nine ‘NO DIVING’ signs were painted on the rails in the lower and upper decks of the property. The most suitable of the signs was the one placed two feet from the ladder that led to the water. It was apparently painted in eight-inch high blue letters and was five feet in length. It is disputable whether Mahon could see the signs clearly but a police officer named Greegan admitted that he did not have any difficulty in seeing the sign on the lower deck after his eyes became acclimated to the darkness. This fact is important since with all these factors in place, it is clear that the defendant is not at fault since they had done quite a great deal to warn the invitees from diving into the water. The defendant also made sure that the signs could be seen in darkness to avoid any accidents. It is quite unfortunate that Ralph Mahon did not heed to the numerous and visible signs especially the one on the lower deck, and it cost him his life. This can be termed as an act of omission on Mahon’s part since all the signs were visible but he still did not consider their importance.
Fact 2: There were no visible entities in the property that would show the presence of diving activities or those that would encourage any invitee to dive into the water.
Reason fact is important: Seacrets had the main aim of inviting customers to the bay to enjoy themselves in many other ways but diving. The defendant made additions to appeal to their invitees such as a volleyball net that was set up twenty-one feet into the bay. There were also floating lounge chairs and a ladder that led into the water. Clearly, there is no way a floating lounge chair, and a volleyball net would lead anyone into diving. There were no swings or diving boards. There was also no visible sign that showed the presence of deep waters which are suitable for diving. Therefore, this fact is important since, in this case, the defendant is not at fault. They did not give any reason whatsoever for any customer to dive into the water. There was the only provision of entities that would ensure the customers have a good time and diving was not one of them. Therefore, once again, the defendant was not at fault since Ralph dived into the water despite the visible absence of any diving activity.
Fact 3: Ralph Mahon had the first-hand experience of how shallow the water that surrounded Ocean City Seacrets was, but he still went ahead and dove.
Reason fact is important: On the night of August 12, 1990, between 8: 30 pm to 9:30 pm, Ralph Mahon left the table and headed toward the beach area that abutted the property. The beach was in the northern part of the property. It is evident that Adams warned him that the water surrounding the area was quite shallow and unsuitable for swimming. Mahon then decided to wade in the water which reached up to his knees; this is an indication that the water was indeed shallow, and swimming or diving in it would not have been a good idea. Also, in another instance, it is reported that he sat down, and the water only reached his stomach, this is another indication that the water was not deep at all. It is evident from the testimony that the beach was about 100 yards from where Adam and Mahon’s wife were seated. Therefore, it means that it was quite clear what Ralph Mahon was doing. This fact is important since it is a clear indication that Ralph knew very well that the water surrounding the property was shallow hence it would be a bad idea to swim in it or worse dive in it. Despite the fact that he had full knowledge, he was also warned by Adams of the shallow waters. However, the sad reality is that he still went ahead to dive into it, for reasons best known to him. All in all, this fact shows a clear indication that the defendant was not to blame for the action taken by Ralph Mahon.
Fact 4: Ralph Mahon did not test the water level before diving, this is a simple action that any prudent person takes before diving. In that case, Mahon did not use his providence-given senses to protect himself from injury.
Reason fact is important: On August 12, 1990, at around 10.00pm, Ralph excused himself from the table a second time. This time, he went southwards towards the lower deck of the complex. It is clear that there was no indication that could have given him a reason to think that the water in the lower deck. Moreover, it was reported that he was not seen testing the water of its depth. He still went ahead to dive at the very spot where the ‘NO DIVING’ sign had been put in place. At that point, he executed a racing dive as he dived head first; unfortunately, due to the shallow depth of the water, he walloped his head at the bottom of the bay. Ralph sustained injuries on his neck. He was immediately flown to a hospital, and later he underwent surgery. Four days later Ralph Mahon succumbed to post-traumatic stroke. This fact is important because for any rational person who wants to dive, it is quite obvious that they first test the water level before they dive or swim. This action is usually important as one need to know the water level so as to test its suitability for swimming or diving. Therefore this actions shows that he failed to exercise ordinary care. It is an unfortunate scenario that Ralph did not bother to test the water level before diving into it. Therefore this fact shows quite clearly that the defendant did not have any part to play in the death of Ralph since necessary precautions were taken to prevent injury and also there was some bit of negligence on Ralph’s part. His contributory negligence cost him his life and honestly the court was indeed fair to judge for the defendant since it is clear from this fact and others that Ralph was the one at fault.
