## Facts

- Daniel Belling was injured after diving head-first through an inner tube into a four-foot-deep above-ground swimming pool in a friend’s yard.
- Belling was 33 years old, an experienced swimmer, and familiar with above-ground pools and the particular pool involved.
- He had been swimming in the pool for hours that day and had helped install it.
- The manufacturer supplied an owner’s manual warning about diving dangers and provided warning decals cautioning against diving into shallow water.
- Belling and his spouse sued the pool manufacturer and the retailer/distributor, primarily alleging strict products liability for failure to provide adequate warnings about diving risks.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no design or manufacturing defect was shown and that Belling’s decision to dive into obviously shallow water was the cause of his injury.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a manufacturer and retailer may be held strictly liable for failure to warn of the danger of diving into a four-foot-deep above-ground pool when the risk is open and obvious to the user.
2. Whether any alleged inadequacy in warnings could be a proximate cause of the injury when the plaintiff knew or should have known the pool’s depth and the associated danger.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order denying summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment to both the manufacturer and the retailer.
- The court held that the risk of head-first diving into four-foot-deep water was obvious and known to the plaintiff.
- The court concluded that any additional or different warning would not have been a substantial factor in causing the injury, so proximate cause was lacking as a matter of law.
- The court noted plaintiffs offered no evidence of a design or manufacturing defect, leaving only a non-causal failure-to-warn theory.

## Legal Principles

- A product may be “defective” for strict liability purposes due to a manufacturing mistake, improper design, or the absence or inadequacy of warnings.
- Failure-to-warn liability requires proof that the missing or inadequate warning was a proximate cause of the injury (a substantial factor leading to the harm).
- There is no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious—risks the user would appreciate to the same extent as if warned.
- Where the user is aware of the relevant risk, an alleged warning deficiency cannot establish causation because the warning would only repeat what the user already knows.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when undisputed facts show the alleged warning defect could not have caused the injury and no other product defect is supported by evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that strict liability for failure to warn did not apply because diving into a four-foot-deep pool presents an obvious danger that the plaintiff knew or should have known, defeating proximate cause; absent evidence of any design or manufacturing defect, defendants were entitled to summary judgment.


Belling v. Haugh's Pools, Ltd., 126 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1987)