Hotel owner liability and health club owner liability depends on the interaction between the specific facts of each situation, and several legal principles. For a swimming accident, the laws of trespass, attractive nuisance, and assumption of risk.
Swimming Accidents and the Law of Trespass
Was the person injured in the swimming accident there on the owner’s property by invitation, or was he or she trespassing? Trespassing is the physical invasion of another’s real property. It doesn’t matter if the invasion of property was intentional or accidental – so long as the trespasser’s objective was on the owner’s property, it counts as trespassing in the court’s eyes. This sort of standard can be difficult to prove, but in situations where someone is choosing to go swimming (rather than simply falling in), this is an important legal test. In most cases of trespassing, landowners are generally not held liable at all. If they are, damages can be severely reduced.
What Is an Attractive Nuisance?
An owner can be held liable - even in cases of trespass - in situations called attractive nuisances. Attractive nuisance is a legal loophole in the trespassing limitation to liability. It says that landowners can be held liable if there is an object on the property that is reasonably known to be an attraction to children, and also dangerous if not properly supervised (or if access is not properly restricted). If this object, such as a pool, is visible from outside the property, and it is insufficiently protected, then the owner could be found negligent if a swimming accident occurs. For hotels or health clubs, there is generally an expectation that children will sometimes be present. If there is no lifeguard on duty, and the pool isn't closed or properly fenced in, then there’s a good chance that a court would impose liability - especially if the injured person is a child.
No Lifeguard on Duty - Assumption of Risk
If there was no lifeguard on duty, then assumption of risk comes into play. A “No lifeguard on duty” sign, or a "swim at your own risk" sign, makes assumption of risk even more important. If such a sign were present and obvious when the person was injured, the court might reason that the swimmer knew of the potential risks when swimming without a lifeguard, but decided to do it anyway. The court would weigh this risk factor with the precautions that the owner or operatior of the facility did take in making its determination. Of course, if the injured was a child, then the court’s expectation for a person’s risk management skills will change.
Getting Help
A definitive answer will always depend on the laws in your jurisdiction and the particular standards for comparative negligence and/or premises liability, If you or a family member have been injured, be sure to talk to a licensed, experienced personal injury attorney in your jurisdiction in order to get a handle on how these principles would play out in your local court.