The swimming season is still some time away, yet the first claims related to swimming pool accidents that occurred last summer have already begun arriving at our office. Due to the high number of accidents taking place in swimming pools—some of them fatal—and in light of the numerous laws, regulations, directives, and court rulings on the subject, we have decided to dedicate this information sheet to the issue of swimming pool accidents.

Swimming pools are intended for recreation, sports, and leisure purposes. The public visiting such recreational and sports facilities is, by nature, less alert to dangers and risks, especially when those risks are unexpected and not visible, due to the non-threatening vacation atmosphere present at these sites. This may be one of the reasons why, on average, 4.2 drowning deaths occur annually in swimming pools in Israel, along with approximately 50 drowning deaths at sea.

The risks faced by visitors at recreational and sports facilities can be categorized into several groups: 

A. Safety risks – including drowning, injuries from slipping, impacts from jumping into shallow water, and electrocution.

B. Health risks – including infections resulting from poor sanitation in the water and surrounding facilities, sunburns and dehydration due to intense heat and sun exposure, poisoning from hazardous chemical leaks into the pool water, and more.

C. Public security risks – arising from hostile sabotage activity or criminal behavior.

The physical conditions of a swimming pool must comply with the requirements set forth in laws and regulations, which include detailed provisions regarding the pool’s construction, appropriate surrounding barriers, entry conditions, and depth markings. In addition, there is a duty of care to ensure proper maintenance of the pool area, including suitable non-slip flooring, appropriate steps and walkways, prevention of tripping hazards, avoidance of toxic or thorny vegetation, cleanliness of the surrounding areas, and the presence of clear signage and markings, among other measures.

The extensive legislation relating to swimming pools is detailed and diverse. Below are a few examples: 

The Order for the Regulation of Bathing Places (Declared Swimming Pools), 1970, issued under the Regulation of Bathing Places Law, 1964, defines terms such as pool, lifeguard, first aid provider, and more. It outlines requirements regarding the lifeguard station, including its location and required equipment, the first aid station, sanitation facilities, water cleanliness and quality, the obligation to fence the pool, depth markings, pool floor color, and many other essential details. By authority granted under the Business Licensing Law, 1968, the Minister of the Interior issued the Business Licensing Order (Businesses Requiring a License), 1995, which defines a swimming pool as a business requiring a license. The Business Licensing Regulations (Swimming Pools and Water Parks), 2001 stipulate that no business license may be issued for a swimming pool unless it has been declared a recognized bathing place. The Business Licensing Regulations (Proper Sanitation Conditions for Swimming Pools), 1994, set forth numerous technical details regarding the quality of water supplied to the pool, the methods of filtration and disinfection, installation of showers and restrooms, provision of shaded areas, maximum number of bathers, and signage requirements, including a detailed list of mandatory signs and their placement within the pool premises.

As is our practice, we will now present a small selection of court rulings involving claims arising from accidents in swimming pools.

Diving Headfirst into Shallow Water 

The plaintiff suffered a head injury when performing a headfirst dive into the shallow section of a swimming pool. The District Court initially rejected the defendant’s argument for exemption from liability, which was based on broad exemption clauses in a standard agreement the plaintiff had signed upon joining the sports club. The court further held that the pool operator is required to take reasonable steps to prevent diving in shallow water areas. These measures include the posting of warning signs and active enforcement of the prohibition. In this case, there were a sufficient number of clearly visible warning signs around the pool area and at the entrance to the facility, explicitly prohibiting diving into the pool. The plaintiff was found to be aware of the prohibition.
The court was also convinced that the defendant had made a reasonable effort to enforce and supervise compliance with the prohibition. At the time of the incident, there were two lifeguards on duty, actively monitoring the area, which the court found sufficient to constitute reasonable supervision. It was further noted that the plaintiff was an adult, a father of children, who had read the posted signs and, even without signage, certainly should have known and understood that diving headfirst into shallow water is prohibited. Accordingly, the claim against the pool operator was dismissed. {C.C. (Tel Aviv) 1689/78 Mordechai Limoni v. Ramat HaSharon Sports Club (Takdin–District 91(2), 1404)}

In contrast, in the well-known Vaknin ruling, the Supreme Court held that although the boy knew the water at the point from which he jumped was shallow, he was not aware of the danger inherent in such a dive. The danger of diving headfirst into shallow water is considered an unreasonable risk, which the diver may not recognize—whereas the pool operators should have foreseen it. The pool operator was required to post warning signs prohibiting diving into shallow water, and to enforce the prohibition through lifeguard supervision. As for the municipality, which owned the property, it did not fulfill its duty when it transferred the operation of the pool to a third-party operator. The municipality handed over operation of the pool without providing signage, and the operator made no changes whatsoever to the pool or its management compared to how it had been operated previously by the municipality. Furthermore, a municipal inspector was present at the site and was aware that no changes had been made to the safety procedures, and that no measures were being taken to prevent the risk of diving into shallow water. Hence, the defendants were found negligent.

The court further held that the tort of breach of statutory duty also applies in this case. Regulation 50(6) of the Business Licensing Regulations imposes a duty to post signage at the entrance to the pool area and in all changing rooms, stating that diving is permitted only from the narrow side of the pool at the deep end. The respondents violated this statutory duty, and this breach led to the damage, since had a sign been posted as required, it is reasonable to assume that a significant number of swimmers would have followed it, and a common practice would have been established—allowing diving only into deep water. In that case, it is likely that the injured party would also have refrained from diving into the shallow water. The plaintiff was assigned one-third contributory negligence, as a reasonable 15-year-old should have sensed the danger of diving into shallow water and refrained from doing so. {C.A. 145/80 Vaknin v. Beit Shemesh Local Council (P.D. 37(1), 113)}

Drowning in a Swimming Pool 

A two-year-old child drowned in a swimming pool. The child’s father was playing soccer at the municipal recreation and sports center, while the mother and her friend watched the game. The children played nearby and eventually reached the area of the swimming pool, which was not in operation at the time and was fenced off. However, there were gaps in the fence, and the toddler entered through one of them, made his way to the pool, and drowned there. The pool contained water that had been standing for an extended period, and the municipality failed to drain it, even though the pool was not in use.

The court held the municipality liable for failing to close the openings that allowed the toddler to access the pool area. With regard to children, a body of water is enticing and alluring, attracting them and posing a danger they are unaware of. This imposes on the property holder a heightened duty of care, requiring preventive measures to eliminate the associated risk. Given the circumstances of the case—where the main entrance to the grassy area was open, and many spectators, including children, came to watch the game—the defendant was obligated to foresee the possibility that a small child might approach the pool, especially since the fencing around it was not secure. The court rejected the defendant’s claim that the mother’s alleged negligence was so severe as to break the causal link between the defendant’s negligence and the damage.

There was indeed a certain degree of negligence in the mother's conduct, as she did not sufficiently supervise her young son. However, given that the loss of visual contact lasted only a few minutes, that the area was intended for children's play, that the pool was fenced and the openings were not easily visible from afar, and that the toddler was accompanied by his older brother, it cannot be said that the mother’s negligence was so severe and unforeseeable as to break the chain of

A parent's failure to maintain constant supervision over a small child is, indeed, a common occurrence—one that was foreseeable under the given circumstances. The municipality created the source of danger and allowed it to exist for an extended period, and therefore was held liable. The mother was assigned 20% contributory negligence for failing to adequately supervise her young son. {C.C. (Be'er Sheva) 380/88 Estate of the Late Eyal Krakash et al. v. Mazkeret Batya Local Council (Takdin–District 91(2), 1001)}

Slipping in the Pool Area 

The plaintiff slipped and fell on the steps leading down to the defendant hotel’s swimming pool due to wetness on the stairs. The court held that a pool, by its very nature, is a wet environment, and that the presence of water—not an unusual liquid or substance—on the pool stairs is natural. Anyone exiting the pool must use the stairs to ascend to the upper level, which also serves as a general passageway outside the pool area. Bathers naturally ascend the stairs while still wet, and it is unreasonable to expect the hotel to assign a staff member to clean or wipe the stairs—or to dry off each bather—after every use, especially when the stairway consists of only a few steps. Accordingly, the court found that the hotel—the pool’s owner—was not liable.

Nonetheless, the court awarded the plaintiff a symbolic sum in compensation, due to the fact that no first aid services were available at the hotel. This was done after both parties authorized the court to rule pursuant to Section 79A of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 1984. {C.C. (Petah Tikva) 3412/98 Yitzhak Liberman v. Radisson Moriah Plaza Dead Sea Hotel et al. (Takdin–Magistrate 98(4), 149)}

A hotel guest was injured as he exited the shallow end of the hotel pool. While climbing up from the pool, he slipped and struck his arm. The court first noted that the presence or absence of warning signs about slipping was not determinative, since the risk of slipping in a pool area is obvious and well known. The central question was whether the poolside flooring increased the risk of slipping beyond what is typical in pool environments. It was held that, since the plaintiff did not submit an expert opinion to support his claim that the surface was particularly slippery, he failed to meet the burden of proof. The plaintiff’s claim that non-slip strips could have been installed along the pool edge was also unsupported by a safety expert. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.

The court further noted that even if it had found the hotel negligent, the plaintiff’s contributory fault would have been substantial, amounting to as much as 80%. In a slippery area such as a pool, the plaintiff was expected to exercise heightened caution. This is a common and well-known risk, understood by all.
Despite the above, the plaintiff—who was outside the pool and wanted to reach the opposite side—chose to cross through the pool rather than walk around it. He also opted to exit the pool not through the designated areas with installed steps, but from another point in the pool where no steps had been installed. While he was certainly entitled to do so, such an exit required heightened caution, as exiting via the installed steps is significantly safer and more stable than climbing out of the pool from an undesignated location onto a slippery surface, where the stability of the person exiting is likely to be compromised—as was the case here. {Small Claims Court (Rishon LeZion) 704/02 Yossi Lux v. Herods Hotel Eilat et al. (Unpublished; cited in Legal Review No. 304)}

Conclusion

In this information sheet, we reviewed some of the laws and regulations that set forth in great detail the requirements imposed on swimming pool operators. We also examined a selection of the diverse case law on the subject—which is not always consistent. In the many expert opinions issued by the Forum of Experts regarding swimming pools, the expert draws on the broad range of relevant laws and regulations to help establish liability. We would be pleased to provide you with a professional safety expert opinion on issues of negligence in the operation of swimming pools, as well as on any other tort-related matter, through our leading engineers and safety experts at the Forum of Experts.

And finally, a word of thanks to our swimming pool expert, Mr. D. Lebkovitz, author of “The Guide for Swimming Pool Operators”, for his assistance in preparing this information sheet.

The information was prepared by Attorney Yael Pal-Hazan.