Attorney, POS Director - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Only Hawaii appears to have adopted a broader rule. In Kaczmarczyk v. City and County of Honolulu, 656 P2d 89 (Ha. 1982), the Hawaii Supreme Court held the municipality to a duty to exercise all reasonable care for the safety of all persons known to be, or reasonably anticipated to be, upon its premises. It also held that municipal responsibility extends to those swimming in the ocean along municipal beach frontage. Kaczmarcyk may, however, be distinguishable on the ground that the beach at the ocean. "); Cimino v. Town of Hempstead, 110 A.D.2d 805, 488 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1985) (Ocean accident; no liability to warn of obvious hazard.); Roberson v. City of Kinston, 261 N.C. 135, 134 S.E.2d 193 (1964) (Canal drowning; "The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location . . . But we know of no decision in this or any other jurisdiction, where the owner of land has been held liable for failure to erect a fence or other obstruction to protect small children from obtaining access to a branch of a creek upon his premises which flows in its natural state. "); Mitchell v. Cleveland Elec. Ilium. Co., 30 Ohio St.3d 92, 507 N.E.2d 352 (1987) (Lake Erie drowning; recreational use statute applied to public land; no duty to warn of extraterritorial danger.); Rowland v. City of Corpus Christi, 620 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) (Bay accident; no liability without actual knowledge of dangerous condition.) See also, Gonzalez v. City of San Diego, 130 Cal. App. 3d 882, 182 Cal. Rptr. 73 (1982) (Ocean drowning; "Where a public entity voluntarily assumes a protective duty toward certain members of the public, even though there is no liability of its acts or omissions, upon undertaking the action on behalf of the public and inducing public reliance, the entity will be held to the same standard of care as a private individual or entity. "); Butler v. Sarasota County, 501 So2d 579 (Fla. 1986) ( "A government unit has the discretionary authority to operate or not operate swimming facilities and is immune from suit on that discretionary question. However, once the unit decides to operate the swimming facility, it assumes the common law duty to operate the facility safely . . . "); City of St. Petersburg v. Collum, 419 So2d 1082 (Fla. 1982) (Governmental entity liable if it creates a known dangerous condition, has knowledge of the danger, and fails to warn or avert the danger.); Brooks v. City of Lake Charles, 488 So2d 465 (La. App. 1986) (Recreational use statute inapplicable to fall from a dock.); Richardson v. Jackson County, 159 Mich. App. 766, 407 74 (1987) (Statutory construction; County operated swimming facility without buoys, contrary to statute.) .