V
O.C. SEACREATS, INCORPORATED; Leighton W. Moore, Jr., Defendants- Appeallees.
Top Four (4) Facts:
Fact 1: the defendant had put up nine ‘NO DIVING’ signs at the property placed on the lower and upper decks. The signs were of a significant size and in distinct colors that made them visible to the intended audience. The five feet blue sign placed near the ladder leading to the water was the most distinct of them all and visible to all visitors. On the night of August 12, 1990, all the nine signs on the property were present and ran across the rails of the upper and lower decks. Placing and lighting of the property ensured visibility of the signs even in darkness hence guests can see them despite the time of their visit.
Reason fact is important: this fact is important since it helps in determination of whether the defendant was negligent by failure to take due care in ensuring the safety of guests at his establishment. The presence of the ‘NO DIVING’ signs indicates that the defendant had taken due care in warning visitors to his property that they should refrain from diving into the water. Having the nine signs indicate that the signs did not only exist but were distinct enough for anyone to see. The signs therefore absorb the defendant of the negligence claims since they indicate he was not negligent in giving a warning about diving into the shallow water. Other guests on the property conceded to seeing the distinct ‘NO DIVING’ on the fateful day proving that any person without vision problem could have seen the signs placed on the property. Even in the night, the guests could see the signs hence the defendant had taken due care in warning guests against diving into the water at all times.
Fact 2: the defendant’s conduct did not imply an invitation into diving for any guests within the property. The absence of diving boards, swings, and any signs indicating the depth of the water indicate that the host did not encourage diving. The absence of diving guards or safety equipment indicated that diving was not a considered activity on the property. There were other recreational facilities on the property such as a volleyball pitch at bay and a floating lounge, but none indicated the need for diving. Facilities at the establishment put up by the defendant therefore did not indicate that the guests could enter into the water by diving.
Reason fact is important: this fact is important in assessing whether the defendant took reasonable due care of his guests at his establishment. It indicates whether his actions were a contributing factor to Mahon’s action of diving into the water, which later led to his death. By inviting his guests on his property, the defendant did not indicate that they would take part in any form of diving. Facilities on the property also did not indicate that diving was an option in the establishment. The conduct of the defendant therefore did not imply that diving was acceptable or encouraged on his property. This therefore proves that he was not negligent in his dealing with the customers by encouraging diving. The action of diving into the water therefore is not the fault of the defendant since he had done his part in warning his guests and discouraging any form of diving.
Fact 3: visitors at the restaurant could see the ‘NO DIVING’ signs placed all over the deck hence Mahon saw the signs too. The signs were visible despite the fact that it was at night meaning all the guests could see the signs unless they intentionally ignored them. Mahon also received a warning from Adam that the water at the bay was not safe for diving due to the shallowness. This indicates that Mahon had information on the unsafe conditions of diving into the water.
Reason fact is important: Mahon saw the warning signs but went ahead and ignored them, which led to his accident. The visibility of the signs indicates that Mahon could see the distinct signs although the impairment of his judgment is debatable due to the intoxication levels. Mahon had consumed high levels of alcohol prior to his diving experience, but the accompanying guests testified that he was acting normal. This could indicate that the alcohol consumption did not significantly affect his judgment and actions hence it is safe for one to conclude he must have read the signs. Diving into the water therefore shows a high level of negligence due to his prior knowledge that diving was unsafe. As an invitee to the establishment, Mahon had a responsibility to conduct himself in a certain manner in his host’s establishment. He should have followed the directions of his host, which included the warning signs displayed on the deck discouraging anyone from diving. He acted in a negligent manner by ignoring the signs and going against the issued instructions. A prudent person would have adhered to the warnings issued or consulted with the host before the actual diving, which resulted in an unfortunate loss of life. This fact indicates that the accident was Mahon’s fault due to his contributory negligence hence the defendant played no role in its occurrence.
Fact 4: Mahon did not assess the depth of the water prior to his diving experience, and he assumed the water was safe for diving. An hour prior to his diving, Mahon had waded into a portion of the water and the water only reached to his knees. This discovery was enough to prevent him from diving head first into the water especially without asking for guidance from his hosts. The water appeared murky which indicate that the guests should have taken due care and assessed the depth before diving. The fact is that Mahon had enough information to enable him to question the depth of the water and the overall safety of the water before diving.
Reason fact is important: this fact is important in establishing Mahon’s responsibility in preventing his unfortunate accident and highlights whether he did what any prudent person would have in similar circumstances. Mahon’s actions amount to contributory negligence since he ignored signs that indicated diving into the water was unsafe. He already knew that the water was shallow therefore unsafe for diving, yet he went ahead into diving headfirst. He ignored obvious signs that could have made him question the safety of the water before diving which led to the unfortunate event. It is therefore safe to say that Mahon’s actions amount to negligence since he did not reasonable precaution before diving. Additionally, diving into water not approved as safe for diving also indicates a high level of negligence on his part.
