610 F.3d 144, 153 (1st Cir. 2010)
Jennifer Sheehan, a thirty-two-year-old resident of Rhode Island, suffered a catastrophic injury on August 8, 2002, while at the home of Marvin Nadiger in Warwick, Rhode Island.1
Earlier that day, Sheehan and Nadiger visited the Islander Restaurant where they shared a scorpion bowl.2 They then stopped at the Oakland Beach Club where Sheehan drank two or three twelve-ounce beers and one or two shots of tequila.3 They arrived at Nadiger’s home around 5:30 p.m.4 Shortly after arriving, Sheehan, Nadiger, and his three children entered the backyard swimming pool.5
The pool was an eighteen-foot-diameter, four-foot-high above-ground “Johnny Weismuller Safari” model manufactured by Delair Group, LLC and sold by The North American Marketing Corp.6 It held approximately three and one-half feet of water.7 The pool was accessed only by a ladder with no adjacent decking or platform.8 The top perimeter consisted of a six-and-one-half-inch-wide flat extruded aluminum coping with ridges.9 The coping was not intended to be stood upon or used for diving.10
At least four warning labels appeared on the pool.11 A sign on the coping at the ladder read “DANGER NO DIVING - SHALLOW WATER - DIVING MAY CAUSE DEATH OR PERMANENT INJURY” with a pictogram of a person striking his head.12 Identical “DANGER - NO DIVING - SHALLOW WATER” signs appeared inside the coping above the waterline.13 Each of the three ladder treads bore the embossed warning “DANGER - SHALLOW WATER - DO NOT DIVE OR JUMP.”14 Sheehan later testified that she did not read the warnings but would have dived anyway.15
After playing in the pool for about thirty minutes, Sheehan pulled herself onto the coping, stood for roughly twenty seconds, and executed a successful shallow dive.16 She then climbed back onto the coping, stood for about ten seconds, lost her balance, and entered the water at a steep “jackknife” angle, striking her head on the bottom and suffering a burst fracture of the C5 vertebra that left her a quadriplegic.17 Her blood-alcohol level measured 0.16 percent at the hospital that evening, with a toxicologist estimating it was between 0.169 and 0.178 percent at the time of the dive.18
Sheehan sued NAMCO and Delair in federal district court for negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty, alleging defects in the coping’s design.19 On April 2, 2008, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.20 Sheehan appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which heard argument and issued its decision on June 30, 2010.21
Whether the plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury as a matter of law when she stood on the coping and attempted to dive into the shallow above-ground pool?22
Assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense in a products liability action in Rhode Island.23 A plaintiff assumes the risk of injury when she knowingly accepts a dangerous situation.24 To establish an assumption-of-risk defense, defendants must prove that the plaintiff knew of the existence of the danger, appreciated its unreasonable character, and voluntarily exposed herself to it.25 The standard is ordinarily subjective, and is based upon what the particular individual in fact saw, knew, understood, and appreciated.26
Yes.27 The danger of diving head-first into shallow water in an above-ground swimming pool was obvious to a thirty-two-year-old adult woman of normal intelligence.28 Sheehan knew the depth of the pool, and indeed had been in it for half an hour prior to the accident.29 There were abundant warnings against diving on and around the coping.30
Sheehan stood on the coping to dive, and the injury that occurred was the same one contemplated by the multiple warnings.31 Under these circumstances, as a matter of law Sheehan assumed the risk of diving, including the risk that she might fall from the coping into the pool while attempting to dive.32 Sheehan's voluntary intoxication does not change the result because a person who voluntarily becomes intoxicated is held thereafter to the same standard as if he were a sober person.33
The plaintiff assumed the risk of her injury as a matter of law, barring recovery on all claims.34
Whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of proximate causation to survive summary judgment on her design defect claims?35
In a products liability action under Rhode Island law, the plaintiff must prove that the defect was the proximate cause of the accident and the plaintiff’s injuries.36 Causation may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence, but inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence may not rely upon mere conjecture or speculation to establish essential elements of the claim.37 An alleged defect in a product need not be the only cause of harm to the plaintiff; liability may be found where the defect is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.38
No. The basic facts as to causation are undisputed but incomplete because Sheehan cannot recall how she entered the pool or where her arms and feet were positioned.39 Other possible factors such as intoxication, momentary clumsiness, or the wet surface could have caused her to lose her balance even on a better coping.40 The proximate causation issue is very close and the court does not decide it, resolving the case instead on assumption of the risk grounds.
The court does not reach whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of proximate causation because the assumption of the risk defense requires affirmance of summary judgment.41