Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents swimming pool accident victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. Drowning is one of the leading causes of accidental death for children in California. Many pool accidents involve not just tragic circumstances but legally actionable failures — a property owner who did not fence a pool, a landlord who failed to maintain safety barriers, a commercial facility that did not provide adequate supervision. California law imposes specific duties on pool owners, and a failure to meet those duties can form the basis of a premises liability claim.

The Swimming Pool Safety Act

Health and Safety Code § 115922 requires that when a building permit is issued for construction of a new swimming pool or spa, or for remodeling of an existing pool or spa at a private single-family home, the pool must be equipped with at least two of seven enumerated drowning prevention safety features. These include an enclosure isolating the pool from the home, a safety pool cover meeting ASTM standards, exit alarms on doors and windows providing direct pool access, self-closing self-latching devices on pool-access doors, and water detection alarms. The statute reflects the Legislature's judgment that pools present a foreseeable drowning risk — particularly to young children — and that property owners bear responsibility for addressing that risk.

Compliance with § 115922 is a floor, not a ceiling. A pool owner who technically complies with the statute may still be liable under Civil Code § 1714(a) if additional precautions were reasonable under the circumstances and their absence contributed to a drowning or near-drowning.

Duty of Care — Pool Owners and Landlords

Civil Code § 1714(a) imposes a duty of ordinary care on every person in the management of their property. California courts have held that a homeowner who rents a property with a maintained swimming pool owes a duty of reasonable care to protect children from drowning — including children who are guests of the tenants. The duty arises because it is foreseeable that children will approach a pool, regardless of their ability to swim, and that the absence of safety barriers increases the risk of a fatal outcome. Whether a reasonably prudent owner would have added a fence, a self-latching door mechanism, or other precautions is a question of fact for the jury.

A landlord who retains responsibility for pool maintenance under the terms of a lease remains exposed to liability for pool-related accidents during the tenancy. Whether a property management company that manages the property on the owner's behalf shares in that liability depends on the scope of the management agreement and the specific conduct at issue.

Attractive Nuisance

An unfenced swimming pool is a classic example of an attractive nuisance — a condition on private property that is likely to attract children who, because of their age, are unlikely to appreciate the danger. Under California law, a property owner may owe a duty of care even to a child trespasser if the owner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass, the condition presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, the child does not appreciate the risk, the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared to the risk, and the owner fails to exercise reasonable care.

Commercial Pool Facilities

Commercial pool operators — hotels, apartment complexes, fitness clubs, water parks — owe their patrons a duty of care under Civil Code § 1714(a) and may also owe the heightened common carrier standard where they operate a commercial attraction. Failure to provide adequate lifeguarding, failure to maintain pool barriers, and failure to address known hazards in and around the pool are theories of liability that arise in commercial pool accident cases.

Damages

Civil Code § 3333 provides that damages include all detriment proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, whether anticipated or not. Civil Code § 3283 allows recovery for future losses reasonably certain to occur. In drowning cases involving death, the wrongful death framework under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 provides the vehicle for surviving family members to recover. In non-fatal near-drowning cases involving brain damage from oxygen deprivation, the damages can be catastrophic and lifelong.

Filing Deadline — Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death claims. Where the victim is a minor, tolling rules under Code of Civil Procedure § 352 may extend the deadline. Missing the applicable deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court

Swimming pool accident cases filed in San Jose are heard at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. All limited and unlimited civil cases must be filed at the Downtown Superior Court under Local Civil Rule 1(C). E-filing is mandatory for represented parties. Cases estimated to take more than one day at trial require a Mandatory Settlement Conference before the trial assignment hearing, with the MSC Statement due no later than five court days before the conference.

Related Pages

• San Jose Personal Injury Attorney
• San Jose Premises Liability Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney
• San Jose Traumatic Brain Injury Attorney
• San Jose Spinal Cord Injury Attorney
• San Jose Amusement Park Injury Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles swimming pool accident cases throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.