Background
Fifteen-year-old Jaylen Hill drowned in a man-made swimming pond at Recreational Adventures Campground. Signs stated that no lifeguard was present, parents were responsible for supervising their children, and guests swam at their own risk. Four signs and a buoy line marked the pond’s deeper area. Although the water near those signs was approximately 2.2 to 3.1 feet deep, the marked zone reached 11 feet, had zero visibility at a depth of 6 feet, and contained about eight inches of soft muck on the bottom.
Jaylen, who had little swimming experience, entered the pond with his half-brother and another teenager. After the other two boys crossed the buoy line and raced underwater, they resurfaced and could not find him. His body was recovered from a depth of approximately eight to nine feet. His estate sued for negligence and premises liability, but the Monroe Circuit Court granted summary disposition to the campground.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. It agreed with the trial court that the estate’s allegations sounded only in premises liability because Jaylen’s injury arose from an allegedly dangerous condition of the land—the deep, murky swimming pond—rather than from independent negligent conduct.
The court nevertheless held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the pond presented an unreasonable risk of harm and whether the campground breached its duty of reasonable care to Jaylen as an invitee. The parties’ competing experts disagreed about whether the signs adequately communicated the danger and whether additional precautions, such as prohibiting swimming beyond the buoys, requiring lifejackets, or providing lifeguards, were necessary. The estate’s expert reports could be considered at summary disposition even though they were unsworn and prepared for an earlier drowning case because their contents were substantively admissible, relevant, and based on conditions documented at the same pond three days after Jaylen’s death.
The court declined to decide the campground’s alternative causation argument because causation was not the basis of the trial court’s ruling and had first been raised in the campground’s reply brief. It remanded the premises-liability claim for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A claim arising from a dangerous condition of land sounds in premises liability, even when the plaintiff alleges that the land possessor created or failed to correct the condition.
- Evidence supporting or opposing summary disposition must be substantively admissible, but it need not already be presented in admissible form; unsworn expert reports may therefore be considered when a plausible basis for admission exists.
- Conflicting evidence about the pond’s hidden depth, poor visibility, muddy bottom, warnings, and available safety precautions created jury questions concerning dangerousness and breach.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that warnings such as “swim at your own risk” and “deep water” do not necessarily establish reasonable care as a matter of law. When a recreational water feature contains risks that guests—particularly inexperienced adolescent swimmers—may not accurately perceive, the adequacy of warnings and other precautions may have to be resolved by a jury.
It also confirms that Michigan courts evaluating summary disposition may consider expert material that is not yet in trial-ready form, provided the evidence is substantively admissible and has a plausible path to admission.