{ "id": 8551672, "name": "LEE D. ANDREWS v. JOHN R. TAYLOR, SR. and wife, BETSY TAYLOR, JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR., JOHN R. TAYLOR COMPANY, INC., and MEREDITH SWIMMING POOL COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Andrews v. Taylor", "decision_date": "1977-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 7718SC51", "first_page": "706", "last_page": "710", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 706" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 N.C. App. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550462 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/8/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627064 ], "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 717", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614544 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E. 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 767", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628773 ], "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0767-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 N.C. App. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555690 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/11/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618798 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0534-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 525, "char_count": 10290, "ocr_confidence": 0.819, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2132866094870562e-07, "percentile": 0.5964851618762329 }, "sha256": "f2547a264d50bbc6a0571be03b2780f89ba01cdd18ed0da3f500fc51f471d04e", "simhash": "1:b9f460ae463917f9", "word_count": 1709 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "LEE D. ANDREWS v. JOHN R. TAYLOR, SR. and wife, BETSY TAYLOR, JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR., JOHN R. TAYLOR COMPANY, INC., and MEREDITH SWIMMING POOL COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nThe sole question before this Court is whether the evidence adduced at trial, considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient to justify a reasonable inference that intestate\u2019s death was the proximate result of the alleged negligence of the defendants.\nSince the record affirmatively reveals that defendant John R. Taylor, Jr. owned and operated the apartment complex, we initially find that plaintiff has failed to establish any grounds for negligence against defendants John R. Taylor, Sr., Betsy Taylor and John R. Taylor Company, Inc. The judgment in favor of these defendants is affirmed.\nIn determining the liability, if any, of defendant John R. Taylor, Jr., for the death of the intestate while swimming in defendant\u2019s pool, we must first ascertain the nature of defendant\u2019s duty to the intestate; any evidence tending to show that defendant Taylor violated this duty in operating and maintaining the swimming pool is evidence of negligence. It is well established that the duty owed a person on the premises of another depends upon the visitor\u2019s status \u2014 as an invitee, licensee or trespasser. Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534, 107 S.E. 2d 154 (1959); Clarke v. Kerchner, 11 N.C. App. 454, 181 S.E. 2d 787 (1971). When a person enters upon the premises of another solely and exclusively in pursuit of his own pleasure, as did plaintiff\u2019s intestate in the instant case, he is a licensee. Adams v. Enka Corp., 202 N.C. 767, 164 S.E. 367 (1932); see Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E. 2d 717 (1957). Regarding the duty owed by an owner to a licensee, our courts have held that an owner owes to a licensee only the duty to refrain from injuring him wilfully or through wanton negligence, and from doing any act which increases the hazard to the licensee while he is on the premises. Hood v. Coach Co., supra; Dunn v. Bomberger, 213 N.C. 172, 195 S.E. 364 (1938); Haddock v. Lassiter, 8 N.C. App. 243, 174 S.E. 2d 50 (1970).\nWe are of the opinion, and so hold, that in the instant case no facts were presented sufficient to show or justify the inference that defendant Taylor was wilfully or wantonly negligent in the operation and maintenance of the Creekbend Apartment swimming pool. The failure of defendant Taylor to provide lifeguards and rescue equipment at his pool did not amount to negligence in light of the absence of any regulation requiring the same and the presence of the \u201cswim at your own risk\u201d notice. Further, plaintiff has failed to show that the availability of lifeguards or rescue equipment would have prevented intestate\u2019s death. See Adams v. Enka Corp., supra. The judgment in favor of defendant Taylor is affirmed.\nPlaintiff has also contended that evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to show negligence by defendant Meredith Swimming Pool Company in the design and construction of the swimming pool. We disagree.\nThe record reveals that plaintiff relied upon the regulations of the Guilford County Board of Health and the recommendations of the North Carolina Commission for Health Services as evidence of the standard of care in the design and construction of swimming pools. However, testimony by plaintiff\u2019s experts discloses not only that the design of the pool was in compliance with the applicable slope requirements, but also that there existed substantial doubt as to whether certain recommendations were even applicable to the subject pool because of the difference in the diving board\u2019s height. In light of this evidence, any inference which a jury might draw therefrom would be the result of speculation and conjecture. This issue was properly withdrawn from the jury\u2019s consideration. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of defendant Meredith Swimming Pool Company is affirmed.\nThe trial court\u2019s entry of judgment for all defendants on their respective motions for directed verdict is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lee D. Andrews, for the plaintiff.", "Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, hy Bynum M. Hunter, for the defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LEE D. ANDREWS v. JOHN R. TAYLOR, SR. and wife, BETSY TAYLOR, JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR., JOHN R. TAYLOR COMPANY, INC., and MEREDITH SWIMMING POOL COMPANY\nNo. 7718SC51\n(Filed 21 December 1977)\n1. Negligence \u00a7 59.2 \u2014licensee\u2014owner\u2019s duty\nWhen a person enters upon the premises of another solely and exclusively in pursuit of his own pleasure, he is a licensee, and an owner owes a licensee only the duty to refrain from injuring him wilfully or through wanton negligence and from doing any act which increases the hazard to the licensee while he is on the premises.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 59.3 \u2014 swimming pool \u2014 licensee\u2019s death \u2014 no negligence of owner\nIn an action to recover for the wrongful death of intestate who was a licensee on defendant\u2019s property, having gone there for the purpose of swimming, evidence was insufficient to show that defendant was wilfully or wantonly negligent in the operation and maintenance of the pool; the failure of defendant to provide lifeguards and rescue equipment at his pool did not amount to negligence in light of the absence of any regulation requiring the same and the presence of the \u201cswim at your own risk\u201d notice; and plaintiff failed to show that the availability of lifeguards or rescue equipment would have prevented intestate\u2019s death.\n3. Negligence \u00a7 30.1\u2014 manufacturer of swimming pool \u2014 insufficient evidence of negligence\nIn an action to recover for the wrongful death of intestate which occurred when he dove from a board into a pool manufactured by defendant, evidence was insufficient to show negligence in the design and construction of the pool where evidence disclosed that the design of the pool was in compliance with applicable slope requirements, and there existed substantial doubt as to whether certain recommendations were even applicable to the subject pool because of the height of the diving board.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 19 August 1976 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1977.\nPlaintiff, administrator, instituted this civil action on 6 March 1975 to recover for the wrongful death of his intestate, Kenneth M. Stokes, who lost his life by drowning in a swimming pool designed and constructed by defendant Meredith Swimming Pool Company, and operated and maintained by defendants John R. Taylor, Sr., Betsy Taylor, John R. Taylor, Jr. and John R. Taylor Company, Inc.\nEvidence offered at trial tended to show that on 22 July 1974, the date of intestate\u2019s death, defendant John R. Taylor, Jr. owned and managed an apartment complex in Greensboro, North Carolina, known as Creekbend Apartments, including a swimming pool located on said premises. On that date, plaintiff\u2019s intestate Kenneth M. Stokes was visiting Claude Moyea, a tenant at Creek-bend Apartments. Stokes and Moyea entered the pool area and Stokes went swimming, using the diving board. Stokes dove off the board and landed near the life line which runs across the middle or \u201cbreak line\u201d of the pool; the depth at the break line is five feet (5'). He did not surface for about a minute and was finally pulled from the water by several men. He was not breathing and had a bruise on his forehead and scars on his knees and chin. After unsuccessful attempts by paramedics to revive Stokes, he was pronounced dead upon arrival at Moses Cone Hospital.\nThe pool at the apartment complex is a kidney-shaped structure approximately sixty-two feet (62') in length. The diving board is twelve feet (12') in length, four feet (4') of which extends over the water at a height of 24 inches (24\"). The deepest point in the pool is the drain at a depth of nine feet (9'). From the drain to the break line, the pool floor has a slope of one foot (1') vertical for every three feet (3') horizontal. The break line is twenty-four feet (24') from the back wall of the pool under the diving board. A sign is posted at the entrance to the pool which recites in pertinent part: \u201cNo lifeguard on duty. Swim at your own risk.\u201d\nJohn C. Nantz, Jr., an engineer with the North Carolina Commission for Health Services (formerly State Board of Health), testified that his agency promulgated recommended minimum standards governing the design, construction and operation of public swimming pools. These recommendations covered the relationship between the depth of the diving well area of a swimming pool and the height of the diving board. Although the subject pool was at variance with certain recommended measurements, Nantz testified that such recommendations were based on the use of a diving board with a height (above the water) of one (1) meter \u2014 fifteen inches (15\") higher than the diving board in use at the Creekbend Apartment pool. In addition, the recommended standards included no provisions requiring lifeguards or rescue equipment (other than a first-aid room) at this type of pool. Nantz further testified that Guilford County had not adopted the State recommendations; and based on his reading of the Guilford County Board of Health regulations governing swimming pools, he could find no violation with respect to the Creekbend pool.\nFranklin C. Odell, Jr., found by the court to be an expert in the field of engineering, testified that he was familiar with the Guilford County regulations \u2014 specifically, the section which provides that the slope of the pool floor between the deepest part (the drain) and the break line shall not exceed one foot (1') vertical in three feet (3') horizontal. He stated that straight away from the diving board, from the drain to the break line, the slope of the floor was in conformity with the county regulation. He also stated that on a different line \u2014 to the left of the diving board \u2014 the slope was greater than one foot (1') in three feet (3') and thus, in violation of the county regulation. However, he did not actually measure this line. Odell further testified that he found the depth markers to be located in their proper place.\nOpinion testimony offered by plaintiff as to the cause of intestate\u2019s death was excluded by the court upon defendant\u2019s objection.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, all the defendants moved for a directed verdict. The court allowed the motions. The plaintiff excepted and appealed to this Court.\nLee D. Andrews, for the plaintiff.\nSmith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, hy Bynum M. Hunter, for the defendants." }, "file_name": "0706-01", "first_page_order": 734, "last_page_order": 738 }