O'Sullivan v. Shaw
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
726 N.E.2d 951 (2000)
- Written by Dan Lake, JD
Facts
O’Sullivan (plaintiff) was visiting the Shaws’ (defendants) house. The Shaws had a swimming pool with shallow and deep ends, and a diving board on the deep end. There were no signs indicating the depth of the pool or warning of the dangers of diving into the shallow end. The Shaws also failed to warn O’Sullivan of these dangers. At nighttime, when the bottom of the pool was not visible, O’Sullivan dove into the shallow end of the pool and hit the bottom. O’Sullivan brought a negligence claim against the Shaws for his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Shaws, holding that the Shaws did not owe O’Sullivan a duty to warn of the open and obvious danger of diving into the shallow end of the pool. On appeal, O’Sullivan argues that the comparative negligence statute abolished the open and obvious danger rule.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
