Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA06-899
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  17 April  2007
MICHAEL BLOHM,
Plaintiff,
v.                                                                                              Wake County
No.  04 CVS  11828
RICHARD CLARK, JENNIFER CLARK,
SACERIO EMPIRE, INC.,
Defendant Appellees.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 15 February 2006 by
Judge  Carl  R.  Fox  in  Wake  County  Superior  Court.    Heard  in  the
Court of Appeals  21 February  2007.
The  Law  Office  of  Charles  M.  Putterman,  by  Charles  M.
Putterman, for plaintiff appellant.
Carruthers  &  Roth,  P.A.,  by  Jack  B.  Bayliss,  Jr.,  for
defendant appellee.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Plaintiff  appeals  from  judgment  entered  by  the  trial  court
granting defendant Sacerio Empire’s motion for a directed verdict
in its favor at the close of plaintiff’s evidence.
Plaintiff  instituted  the  instant  action  to  recover  damages
arising from plaintiff’s injury sustained on 8 July 2003.   At trial
plaintiff presented evidence which tended to show that plaintiff,
his   two   children,   defendants   Jennifer   and   Richard   Clark,
defendants’  children,  guest  Ryan  Bargoil,  and  a  lifeguard  were




-2-
present at the Oak Hall pool on 8 July 2003.   The swimming pool was
managed by defendant Sacerio Empire which employed the lifeguard on
duty at the time, Jonathan Lunchick.
Plaintiff and defendant Jennifer Clark were in the shallow end
of  the  pool  with  their  young  children  and  two  of  the  older  boys
were playing with diving sticks in the shallow end of the pool as
well.    The rest of the pool was empty.    Diving sticks are plastic
sticks  measuring  around  eight  inches  which  are  brightly  colored
sticks  weighted  at  one  end  and  intended  to  sink  to  the  bottom  of
the pool in order to then be retrieved by the children.   Plaintiff
became uncomfortable with the boys throwing the diving sticks near
the  young  children  and  at  some  point  his  comments  regarding  the
children  and  their  activity  caused  the  lifeguard  to  blow  his
whistle.    After blowing the whistle, the lifeguard instructed the
two  older  boys  to  move  into  an  unoccupied  section  of  the  pool  to
play with their diving sticks.
The  older  boys  did  as  they  were  instructed  by  the  lifeguard
but  eventually  drifted  back  towards  the  shallow  end  of  the  pool
causing  the  lifeguard  to  blow  his  whistle  for  a  second  time  in
order to instruct the boys to move back into the deeper end of the
pool.    Shortly  after  the  second  whistle  was  blown,  plaintiff  was
hit in the face causing injury to his eye by a diving stick thrown
by Ryan.
Excerpts from the deposition of the lifeguard were introduced
during  the  plaintiff’s  presentation  of  evidence  in  which  the
lifeguard  testified  that  diving  sticks  were  permitted  at  the  Oak




-3-
Hall  pool;  that  there  were   certain  objects  which  were  not
permitted; and that he did not see any problem with the conduct of
the  children  throwing  the  diving  sticks.    The  lifeguard  further
testified that he blew the whistle and instructed the boys to play
in  the  deep  end  of  the  pool  both  times  due  to  the  comments  of
plaintiff and not due to the actions of the boys.
At  the  close  of  plaintiff’s  evidence,  defendant  Sacerio
Empire, motioned the court to enter a directed verdict in its favor
where plaintiff failed to present any evidence of negligence on the
part  of  Sacerio  Empire.     The  court  granted  the  motion  for  a
directed verdict in favor of defendant Sacerio Empire, and from the
judgment entered thereafter plaintiff appeals.
The sole issue presented by this appeal questions whether the
trial  court  erred  in  directing  a  verdict  for  defendant  Sacerio
Empire. We hold that the trial court did not commit error.
A  defendant's  motion  for  directed  verdict  made  pursuant  to
N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  1A-1, Rule  50(a) tests the legal sufficiency of
the  evidence  to  support  a  verdict  for  the  plaintiff  and  the
question presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to go to
the jury. Whaley v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,  144 N.C. App.  88,
92,  548  S.E.2d  177,  180,  disc.  review  denied,  354  N.C.  229,  555
S.E.2d                                                                       277   (2001).  In  ruling  upon  the  motion,  the  evidence  is
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, who is
to be given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be
drawn from it. Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.,  291 N.C.  666,  670,
231 S.E.2d  678,  680  (1977).




-4-
In Manganello, the court set forth the duty imposed upon the
owner or proprietor of a swimming facility:  “The owner is not  ‘an
insurer  of  the  safety  of  his  patrons’  but  he  must  exercise
‘ordinary  and  reasonable  care’  for  their  safety  lest  he  be  held
liable for injury to a patron resulting from breach of his duty.”
Id.  at                                                                        670-71,                                                       231  S.E.2d  at   680          (citation  omitted).  Further  a
proprietor is liable for the negligent or intentional acts of third
parties                                                                        “‘“for   injuries   resulting   from   the   horseplay   or
boisterousness  of  others,  regardless  of  whether  such  conduct  is
negligent or malicious, if he had sufficient notice to enable him
to stop the activity.  .  .                                                    .”’”    Id. at  671,  231 S.E.2d at  681.
The Court in Manganello stated:
While  rough  or  boisterous  play  in  water
is    not    dangerous    per    se,    hazardous
consequences to other swimmers and bathers are
clearly   reasonably   foreseeable   when   such
activities                                                                     are                                                           left              unattended   and
unrestricted.  If  rough  or  boisterous  play  is
to be permitted at all, it should be confined
to a restricted area or, at a minimum, closely
guarded.  .  .                                                                 “[T]he  law  does  not  require
the owner to take steps for the safety of his
invitees such as will unreasonably impair the
attractiveness  of  his  establishment  for  its
customary patrons.”
Id. at  672,  231 S.E.2d at  682  (citation omitted).
In  the  instant  case  there  was  no  evidence  presented  by
plaintiff that the lifeguard on duty was inattentive or distracted.
The  lifeguard  testified  that  the  use  of  diving  sticks  was  not
prohibited  by  the  rules  of  the  pool  and  further  that  he  sent  the
boys  to  a  different  end  of  the  pool  based  solely  on  plaintiff’s
request that the boys not be allowed to throw the diving sticks in




-5-
the  occupied  shallow  end  of  the  pool.  Further,  the  lifeguard
immediately  blew  the  whistle  when  the  boys  drifted  back  into  the
shallow end and instructed them to move back out of the restricted
area.   The   actions   of   the   boys   could   not   be   classified  as
boisterous,  hazardous  or  horseplay  and  even  if  it  were  such,  the
lifeguard  restricted  the  activity  to  a  certain  area  and  closely
watched the actions of the boys to ensure compliance.
This  evidence  is  in  direct  contradiction  with  the  evidence
offered by the plaintiff in Manganello in which the Supreme Court
opined that a motion for directed verdict was incorrectly granted.
In  Manganello,  there  was  evidence  that  the  lifeguards  were
inattentive,  the  swimming  area  was  crowded,  there  were  several
young  men  in  the  water  jumping  and  flipping  backwards  from  the
shoulders of other young men, the activity went on for at least  20
minutes,  and  an  expert  witness  testified  that  it  was  not  an
acceptable  aquatic  practice  to  allow  young  men  to  get  on  one
another’s shoulders and do back flips into the water. There is no
such  evidence  in  the  instant  case;  and  while  the  legal  standards
set  forth  in  Manganello  are  applicable,  the  analysis  is  not
analogous or controlling based upon the factual distinctions.
The  evidence,  even  viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to
plaintiff,  failed  to  establish  any  negligence  on  the  part  of
defendant Sacerio Empire and therefore the court correctly granted
the motion for directed verdict in its favor.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 06-899-5.pdf

South Carolina Law