Internal Memorandum of Law - Assignment Example

Owen and Dolly Jones, who own and operate the campground, don't have any security on the premises because they are a "mom and pop" operation, and many of the campers come back year after year. They posted a sign out front that says, "Everyone's family at the O & D Family Campground!" Tamara's family has been looking for a summer spot to which they can return year after year, so they gave the O & D Family Campground a try this year. The first morning after arriving, the two 10-year-old girls hit the pool at about 9:30, even though a sign posted at the pool entrance states that the pool is not supposed to open for another half hour, at 10:00 am.

Tamara dove into the pool, and said, "Ow! It's shallow here, but it is warm! Come on in!" Shayla yelled, "What?" and dove in right next to Tamara, but she hit bottom and broke her arm. Tamara saved Shayla from drowning by pulling her to the side of the pool and then helping her out to the pool deck. The girls yelled for Tamaras parents, who came out and immediately called an ambulance. Owen and Dolly returned from breakfast in town and rushed into the pool area before the ambulance even arrived.

Tamaras mom wondered why the pool was not marked as shallow on that end, but Dolly says they put up the signs every morning when they get ready to officially open the pool, plus the pool is sand bottom and relatively soft anyway. Shayla's mom wants to sue Tamara's parents for negligent supervision, as well as the campground for negligence. ISSUES: A) Are the Tuttle family responsible for negligent supervision, e.g. did they not sufficiently monitor Shayla and Tamara? B) Is the campground responsible due to their negligence?

RULES: The relevant case law depends on the state in which the events occurred. However, a few relevant laws and standards apply. First: The Americans with Disabilities Act and other jurisprudence protect Shayla. Even though she is dyslexic, that does not mean that she is any more responsible or that the campground is any less responsible. Second: A business has some defense against negligence if what occurred happened outside normal business hours. However, this defense is not ironclad: If a company has an employee do an errand and the employee gets into a crash while carrying a company-issued cell phone or pager or is a non-designated driver, the company can be liable even outside of normal operating hours (FindLaw, 2011).

Third: The duty to monitor children is actually quite narrow (Mahoney, 1994, 95). The general maxim is that a behavior must be noticed by the supervisory authority, who is like a parent, and then the behavior must fail to be stopped. In a Georgia case, a girl who crashed an ATVs mother could not be held accountable simply because of the parent relationship, and this applies to the Tuttles in loco parentis (Levy & Pruett, 2010). Fourth: A pool must have a fence (Munley, Munley and Cartwright, 2011).

In addition, other safety elements may be required. CONCLUSION: The Tuttles are not likely to be liable. Ms. Smith would face a difficult time proving that the Tuttles should have known that their daughter would go off on her own to the pool and that they could have stopped it. In addition, Tamara's actions indicated responsibility, not recklessness. Smith should probably drop the lawsuit against the Tuttles. However, the campground may be liable. The injury occurred off normal hours when the pool was closed, and this fact was well-marked, but warning signs and fencing were not present.

Business owners have a responsibility to indicate fully that their areas are locked down and secured, such as fencing and warning signs. The campground failed to provide these and thus may be liable. The campground should settle out of court.