Question

A swimmer went to a privately owned lake resort whose owner charged a fee for admission. The beach had a roped-in swimming area and large signs directing swimmers not to swim anywhere but within the ropes. The lifeguards regularly enforced this rule. The resort also rented canoes and rowboats to its patrons, who could take them anywhere on the lake. The swimmer and two of his friends had rented a canoe and started to paddle out toward the other side of the lake when the swimmer saw a volleyball game starting on the beach that he wanted to join. He left his friends in the canoe and started swimming to shore. He was only a few yards outside of the roped-in swimming area when he started, but he angled away from the swimming area toward the area of the beach where the volleyball net was set up. Although the lifeguard on duty saw him, she did not warn him to return to the swimming area. When the depth of the water was about four feet, he put his foot down and was severely cut by the jagged edge of a rusted metal stake protruding a few inches out of the bottom of the lake. The swimmer had not seen the stake even though the water was clear and it was visible if he had looked down.
If the swimmer sues the resort for his injury in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover?
A. No, because the stake could have been seen by the swimmer.
B. No, because he was swimming outside of the roped-in area.
C. Yes, because the lifeguard on duty saw him and did not warn him to return to the swimming area.
D. Yes, because he is a public invitee of the resort.

Answer 1

Answer:

B. No, because he was swimming outside of the roped-in area.