Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fleming v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive, Inc.
Citation: 449 So. 2d 1293Docket: No. 83-683
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 4, 1984; Florida; State Appellate Court
Summary: Judge Sharp dissents from the summary judgment, arguing that material questions of fact exist regarding Aquaslide's obligation to provide adequate warnings and instructions about the necessary pool size and depth for safe use of the diving board involved in the incident. There is also a critical issue concerning the sufficiency of the warnings and instructions that were actually provided. It was acknowledged by the appellee's counsel that the diving board was safe for children but posed hazards for adults when used in the pool size where the injury occurred. Aquaslide, as the manufacturer, held the key information regarding the diving board's performance with average-sized users. The necessity for warnings and the adequacy of those provided should be determined by a jury, as supported by relevant case law including Macmurdo v. Upjohn Company, Giddens v. Denman Rubber Manufacturing Company, and Robinson v. Broward County School Board.