holding that the city’s maintenance of public pool as governmental function was not affected by fact that nominal fees were charged to use pool, where fees were insufficient to cover the expenses of its maintenance
How later courts described this case
- holding that the city’s maintenance of public pool as governmental function was not affected by fact that nominal fees were charged to use pool, where fees were insufficient to cover the expenses of its maintenance
- concluding that “the maintenance of a public park is a governmental function, and ... the municipality is not liable for any default or neglect of its agents or employees in the management thereof’
- holding that the maintenance and management of a public swimming pool in a public park is also a governmental function
- stating, in dicta, that hospitals are considered governmental functions of the municipality
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bond, C. J.,
filed a concurring opinion as follows.
I should prefer to have it noted that there would be ground for the reversal not only in the immunity of the defendant municipality, but also in a lack of evidence-to show any negligence on the part of its guards or other employees' contributing to the accident. Two guards were on duty, the usual number, but somehow nobody saw the child go under water and fail to come up. She may have dived under as other children were doing. The fact that none of the children nearby missed her suggests the-absence of any occurrence in their sight out of the common. The accident appears to be unexplainable.
Parke, J., likewise concurred in the reversal on the-ground that no negligence was shown on the part of the-municipality or its agents.