1. CAP STONE FINAL
PROJECT
Unit 9
By: Jamie Mitchell-Crews
11/16/2013

2. [2]
Memorandum
To: Paralegal – J. Mitchell-Crews
From: Senior Partner
Date: 11/17/2013
RE: Smith v. Tuttle; O & D campground (Owner Dolly Jones)
CASE: Smith v. Tuttle, & O and D campground owner Dolly Jones
Petitioner: Mary Smith, [child] Shayla Smith
Respondent: Bob and Susan Tuttle
Respondent: O and D campground [owners] Dolly Jones
FACTS: Shayla Smith was injured on April 30, 2008, when she dove into a shallow pool and broke
her arm, Which, occurred at O & D family campground - Mr. & Mrs. Tuttle took Tamara their
daughter with a guest Shayla Smith to a campground. According to Mary Smith, (Minor Children)
Tamara and Shayla went swimming at approximately 9:30 a.m. The pool officially opens at 10:00
a.m. according to the sign that is normal posted every morning before pool opens at the gates
entrance of regulation of pool operational times, which the children did not originate as the result
of her injuries, and no supervision at the pool.
The owners, Owen and Dolly Jones, who own and operate the campground, do not have any
protection on the premises because they are a ‘mom and pop’ operation, seasonal campground. The
sign out front that is visible to guest says, “Everyone’s family at the O & D Family Campground.
Fact of Injuries: Fracture of right humorous, radius, and ulna (pins used); contusions; emotional
distress. Slow healing. Emergency treatment at Memorial Hospital taken by County Ambulance.

3. [3]
ISSUE: Dose our client, “Shayla’s family” have justifications to sue Mr. & Mrs. Tuttle for negligent
of supervision, as well as the O & D campground for negligence
BRIEF ANWCER: Yes, Mrs. Smith has ground to seeking monetary damages and liability of the
actions of the caregiver and facility “O&D family campground (owner Mrs. Jones). Mrs. Smith has
grounds under Florida Laws:
 Liability & Attractive Nuisance 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability §§ 66-77, regarding neglect
by landowner and/or property & Attractive Nuisance regarding Statues of Florida laws of
Pool/pond regulation.
 Neglect FLA.STAT. § 775.082, FLA.STAT. § 775.083, FLA.STAT. § 775.084; a person who
commits aggravated child abuse committing a felony of the first-degree “neglect under laws
of caregiver.
Mrs. Smith has ground file of Neglect Supervision, Loss of compensations of reimbursements, time
loss from work, travel expensive, tutoring expensive of her child not attending school, medical
compensations, mental and anguish for their neglect and endangering the welfare of a minor.
Negligence and Attractive Nuisance regarding this issue, the Attractive nuisance doctrine is
premised on the belief that one who maintains a dangerous condition which is likely to attract
children on their property is under a duty to post a warning or take affirmative action to protect
children from the dangers of that attraction. It imposes a duty to be sensitive to potentially
dangerous conditions, which are likely to attract children. The attractive nuisance doctrine typically
does not apply to adults. However, if a child is in danger due to an attractive nuisance and an adult
attempts to rescue the child, the attractive nuisance doctrine may hold the landowner responsible for
the rescuer's injuries in addition to the child's injuries.

4. [4]
RULE:
A. Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 629 So.2d 1029, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D49 (Fla. App. 4 Dist.
Dec 29, 1993)
Under section 373.171, (1) (a), Florida Statutes (1979), that governs the provisions of each water
management district is sanctioned to issue rules and regulations to “protect the public health, safety,
and welfare in the interests of this state regarding water usages. These statutes and procedures must
be filed with the Department of State of Florida FLA. STAT. § 373.171(4), Fla.Stat. (1979).
B. FLA. STAT. § 515.23 (Legislative findings and intent) The Legislature finds that drowning
is the leading cause of death of young children in this state (Fla.)
Therefore, it is the intent of the (Fla.) Legislature that all new residential swimming pools, spas,
and hot tubs be equipped with at least one pool safety feature as specified in FLA.STAT. §
515.23.
C. Starling v. Saha 451 So.2d 516 (Fla. 5th
D.C.A. 1984) child drowned when the child was
swimming in a pond and got caught by an intake house of a drainage pump that had been left
operating with out supervision.
D. 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability §§ 66-77: Generally, a landowner may be responsible for a child
trespasser's injuries if:
 The property owner knows or has reason to know that the place where a dangerous
condition exists is one where a child may trespass.
 The dangerous condition is known to or should be known to cause unreasonable risk of
harm to a child.
 The child, because of their young age, does not realize the risk involved with the dangerous
condition.
 The burden of eliminating the danger is less than the risk posed to a child.
 The property owner fails to act with reasonable care to remove the danger or protect the
child from the risk of danger.
Additionally, the dangerous condition must be one that is man-made, like a pool or hot tub, and
constitutes an attractive "trap" for a child. Landowners near a playground, residential area, school,
or other populated area where children frequent may have a greater duty to eliminate dangers. It is
important to know that a natural body of water, like a lake, stream, or pond may not be an attractive
nuisance, so make sure to protect children
4) A child died when swimming in a manufactured pit filled with water, where children were known
to swim. The pit was equipped with a wooden dock and raft. (Ansin v. Thurston, 98 So. 2d 87 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1957)).

5. [5]
5) FLA.STAT. § 775.082, FLA.STAT. § 775.083, FLA.STAT. § 775.084; Ref: Neglect - a person who
commits aggravated child abuse committing a felony of the first-degree “neglect”. Florida Statues
state that caregiver failure or omission to provide a child of the following:
A. the care, supervision and service necessary to maintain the child physical and mental health,
including but not limited to food, nutrition, clothing shelter, supervision, medicine and
medical service that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the
child.
B. If the caregiver does not provide these functions above, violate the statues. A caregiver
failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect or exploitation by
another person
ANALYSIS: Shayla Smith was injured on April 30, 2008, when she dove into a shallow pool and
broke her arm. Shayla was camping with her friend Tamara, and Tamara's parents, Bob and Susan
Tuttle. The Tuttle’s were camping at the O & D Family Campground owned by Owen and Dolly
Jones. Shayla is 9-years-old, was supervised by Mrs. Tuttle and had temporary guarding for Shayla
Smith while on this camping trip.
According to Mary Smith, her daughter is special need child, on the day of the incident Tamara and
Shayla went swimming. The pool officially opened at 10:00 a.m. according to a sign posted on the
gate entrance regulation of pool operational times, which the children did not observe at the time.
In addition, there was no supervision was not posted or supervision required at pool.
Shayla injuries was Fracture of right humorous, radius, and ulna (pins used) contusions, emotional
distress. Slow healing. Emergency treatment at Memorial Hospital taken by County Ambulance.
Shayla had a cast for 6 weeks and is undergoing physical therapy due to the severity of the break.

6. [6]
CONT. ANALYSIS:
Therefore, there was no supervision for these children, which relate to neglect and attractive
nuisance the result of her injuries.
Shayla case which the Ms. Smith is seeking monetary damages and liability of the actions of the
caregiver and/or facility “O&D family campground regarding the pond issue of Ms. Smith case to
the case above for law suit litigations.
In addition, of seeking not only damages from O & D family Campground but of the Tuttle’s
family of neglect and endangering the welfare of a minor.
In Analyzing three case regarding similar facts of Ms. Smith v. O & D Family Campground
and Tuttle Family was up held:
1) Case - Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes: In the case above, the Florida law stated that the proper
legal actions and protocols were taken in the Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes, which support
the case above regarding Statues and laws of Florida. This case Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes
support and Holdings by the “Circuit Court for Broward County, Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., J.,
Granted” final decisions in favor of developer and property association, and parents
appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Gunther, J., Held that: (1) fact question as to
whether developer had complied with South Florida Water Management District which
(SFWMD they did not follow the guidelines, regulations and permits creating a breach by
developers of neglect and endangering safety and welfare of others. The case was:
REVERSED AND REMANDED. POLEN and KLEIN, JJ, concur.

7. [7]
CONT. ANALYSIS:
2) Case – Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode, 501 So. 2D 622 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1986) In the case of Walt
Disney World Co. v. Goode, the Parents of four-year-old child who drowned on amusement theme
park premises brought wrongful death action against park. The Circuit Court, judgment was The
District Court of Appeal, Orfinger, J., held that:
(1) Whether park was liable for drowning turned on ordinary rules of negligence as applied
to business invitee at place of public amusement.
(2) Breach of duty and proximate causation were questions of fact for jury; and (3)
$1,000,000 damages awarded to each parent for past and future pain and suffering were not
excessive. Was Affirm
3) Case - Switzer v. Dye 177 So.2d 539 Fla.App. (1965). Action for injuries sustained by 12-year-old
child when she dived from pier owned by defendant. (Dye). The Circuit Court, Clay County, Marion
W. Gooding, J., dismissed complaint with prejudice and plaintiffs appealed. The District Court of
Appeal, held that depth of water three to five feet beneath pier five feet above water, did not
constitute a trap (41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability §§ 66-77) . That unusual element of danger as
applied to unauthorized persons using the pier and pier owner was not liable for injuries sustained
the child when dived from pier in such a way as to strike bottom of lake. Affirm.
CONCLUSION: Florida Statues FLA. STAT. § 373.171(4), Fla. Stat. 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises
Liability §§ 66- states that Under section 373.171, (1) (a), Florida Statutes (1979), that governs the
provisions of each water management district is sanctioned to issue rules and regulations to “protect
the public health, safety, and welfare in the interests of this state regarding water usages. These
statutes and procedures must be filed with the Department of State of Florida FLA. STAT. §
373.171(4), Fla.Stat. (1979). In addition, Florida statues states, 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability §§ 66-
77: Generally, a landowner may be responsible for a child trespasser's injuries if The property owner

8. [8]
knows or has reason to know that the place where a dangerous condition exists is one where a child
may trespass. The dangerous condition is known to or should be known to cause unreasonable risk
of harm to a child. The child, because of their young age, does not realize the risk involved with the
dangerous condition. The burden of eliminating the danger is less than the risk posed to a child.
The property owner fails to act with reasonable care to remove the danger or protect the child from
the risk of danger
Additionally, the dangerous condition must be one that is man-made, as a pool constitutes an
attractive "trap" for a child. Landowners near a playground, residential area, school, or other
populated area where children frequent may have a greater duty to eliminate dangers. It is important
to know that a natural body of water, like a lake, stream, or pond may not be an attractive nuisance.
In regards of Neglect FLA.STAT. § 775.082, FLA.STAT. § 775.083, FLA.STAT. § 775.084; a person
who commits aggravated child abuse committing a felony of the first-degree “neglect”. Florida
Statues state that caregiver failure or omission to provide a child:
1) The caregiver, lacking supervision and service necessary to maintain the child physical and
mental health. The Caregiver must include but not limited to food, nutrition, clothing
shelter, supervision, medicine and medical service that a prudent person would consider
essential for the well-being of the child failure to provide these outline is violation of Florida
Statues.
CONT. CONCLUSION

9. [9]
2) If the caregiver does not provide these functions above, violate the statues. A caregiver
failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect or exploitation by
another person.
Therefore, the accident is supported that Tuttle; O & D campground (Owner Dolly Jones) are
liable for Neglect and Attractive Nuisance laws by Florida regulations, Statues and cases. Ref:
Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 629 So.2d 1029, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D49 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. Dec 29,
1993), Starling v. Saha 451 So.2d 516 (Fla. 5th
D.C.A. 1984) and Florida Statues.
.
Cited Word

10. [10]
Gilbertson v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 629 So.2d 1029, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D49 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. Dec 29,
1993)
US Legal, Defining Attractive Nuisance (2013) http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attractive-
nuisance/
FLA. STAT. § 373.171(4), Fla.Stat. (1979). West Law
Starling v. Saha 451 So.2d 516 (Fla. 5th
D.C.A. 1984) West Law
Fla. Stat. 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability §§ 66-77
Walt Disney World Co. v. Goode, 501 So. 2D 622 (Fla.5th
DCA 1986) West Law
Switzer v. Dye 177 So.2d 539 Fla.App. (1965). West Law
Ansin v. Thurston, 98 So. 2d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1957).
FLA.STAT. § 775.082, FLA.STAT. § 775.083, FLA.STAT. § 775.084 (Neglect)