Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsNegligence per seCausationContributory negligenceBurden shiftingWrongful deathwrongful deathswimming pool

Facts

Mr. Haft and his five-year-old son Mark drowned in defendants' motel pool; no one witnessed the actual drownings. The evidence showed that defendants failed to provide a lifeguard and failed to post any sign warning that no lifeguard was on duty, and also lacked numerous other legally required pool safety measures. Plaintiffs proved these statutory and regulatory violations, which were designed to protect pool users such as the decedents. At trial, the court left causation and Mark's contributory negligence to the jury and excluded two prior health department inspection reports offered to show defendants' knowledge of the safety requirements.

Issue

When plaintiffs prove that a motel pool owner violated the statutory requirement to provide lifeguard service or post a warning sign, and no direct evidence exists as to how the drownings occurred, does the burden of proof on causation shift to the defendant? Also, was the issue of five-year-old Mark's contributory negligence properly submitted to the jury, and were prior health inspection reports admissible on the issue of wilful misconduct?

Rule

A pool owner who neither provides a lifeguard nor posts the statutorily required warning sign is liable with respect to the omission to provide lifeguard services, not merely the omission to post the sign. When plaintiffs prove that statutory lifeguard violation and the circumstances strongly suggest that a reasonably attentive lifeguard would have prevented the deaths, plaintiffs satisfy their initial burden on causation and the burden shifts to defendants to prove that the violation was not a proximate cause. A young child acting under the direct care and supervision of a parent is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law on these facts where there is no substantial evidence supporting such negligence. Evidence showing defendants' prior knowledge of safety violations is relevant and admissible for the limited purpose of proving wilful and wanton misconduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A resort in Scottsdale, Arizona maintained a guest pool open all day. It provided neither a lifeguard nor a posted warning that no lifeguard was on duty. One afternoon, Daniel Voss was found drowned in the deep end, and no one saw how he got into trouble.

In Daniel's wrongful death action, which is the strongest statement of the causation rule?

Explanation. The majority held that when plaintiffs prove the defendant negligently failed to provide required lifeguard service and the available facts strongly suggest a competent, attentive lifeguard would have prevented the death, plaintiffs satisfy their initial burden and the burden shifts to defendant to show the violation was not a proximate cause. The rule is tied specifically to the lifeguard violation and the evidentiary gap created by that omission, not to all statutory violations generally. (Derived from Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel (n.d.).)