San Antonio Water Park Drownings

San Antonio Water Park Drowning Accident Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses Texas Waterpark Accidents

Texas residents enjoy getting into the water, especially during the hot summer months. Whether it’s in a backyard pool or at one of the hundreds of water parks located in Texas, children and adults alike look forward to the days when they can rest, relax, and have fun in the water. Popular water parks in Texas include:

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--
  • Lost Lagoon at SeaWorld in San Antonio
  • Schiltterbahn in New Braunfels, South Padre Island, and Galveston
  • Splash Town USA in San Antonio
  • Six Flags Hurricane Harbor
  • Wet-n-Wild
  • Volente Beach
  • Hawaiian Falls
  • White Water Bay
  • Splash Kingdom

Unfortunately, with the thousands of people that visit these water parks in Texas each year, water park accidents are bound to occur. Drownings, head or neck injuries, broken bones, diseases, and many other types of injuries can happen with less than a moment’s notice. Serious to severe injuries can result in a victim developing a medical condition that may require extensive surgery or even life-long medical care. In the event of a San Antonio water park drowning accident, the family that has lost a loved one will experience a great amount of grief, in addition to likely feeling anger and frustration at the parties possibly responsible for their loss. When negligent behavior is suspected to have contributed to a water park accident causing injury or loss of life, an aggrieved party likely has merit in pursuing legal action against the negligent parties through a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. The following article details a few of the issues often involved in these particular kinds of civil suits.


Liability in a San Antonio Water Park Drowning Accident

In the initial aftermath of a drowning accident at a water park in San Antonio, an injured person or a bereaved family likely has one question: Who did this? In some instances, negligent entrustment may have played a role in which a responsible adult, supervisor, of lifeguard failed to properly supervise a child while the child was in or near a pool. Since a fatal pool accident can occur within minutes, a supervising adult must maintain a vigilant watch over children in their care. Should such supervision be found to be lacking in some way and a child has suffered an injury or has lost their life due to such negligent supervision, the bereaved family may be able to seek legal action against the negligent supervisor. Should the supervisor be an employee of the water park, legal action can be taken against the water park company itself.

A water park owner may bear premises liability in other situations caused by lack of necessary maintenance to the pool, the areas surrounding the pool or water-related play areas, or pool equipment. Water rides and amusement park rides must be kept in properly functioning condition so as not to present a safety hazard to a rider or visitor. Gates should be properly placed and maintained so as to prevent children from entering unrestricted areas. Water slides and other similar types of pool equipment should be maintained so that serious injuries do not occur to those that choose to use them. Since many water parks in Texas are quite popular and can have thousands of people using their facilities each day, proper maintenance of the grounds is a vital aspect toward providing for the public safety. When such maintenance is not routinely performed and a person is injured or killed due to lack of maintenance, a water park owner or a water park property manager may be held liable for such an accident.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has standards in place in regards to water parks and their design, staffing, and quality of water used in their park. A water-park must be designed so as to provide for the public safety by diminishing the opportunity for an accident to occur by not having shallow pools constructed, slippery surfaces built covering large areas, or allowing for water rides to become over-crowded. Water park staff personnel should know CPR, other life-saving methods, and crowd control. Ant-bacterial chemicals should be used and other precautions taken in order to ensure the quality of the water used in the water park so as to mitigate the chance for a water-borne disease to develop in a water park visitor. Should a water park not be meeting ANSI standards, the water park owner or property management company may bear liability for any injury accident that may occur as a result of a failure to maintain those standards.

Furthermore, a product liability case may be pursued if a defective piece of equipment contributed to a water park pool accident. For instance, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act mandates that all public pools, which includes those used at San Antonio water parks, must use anti-entrapment pool drain covers in order to prevent entanglement, entrapment, or suction accidents from occurring due to a drain. If such a drain cover is not used or is defective, severe injury or death could result to a child or adult caught in an under water vacuum. However, determining if a piece of equipment was defective or simply faulty can be challenging. Defective equipment leaves liability with the product manufacturer; faulty equipment often leaves liability with the entity responsible for the upkeep of the pool or pool equipment. While ascertaining liability in such pool accident cases in Texas can be challenging, an experienced San Antonio water park drowning accident attorney can conduct a thorough investigation into the accident in order to properly assess who the negligent parties may have been.

In some instances of drowning accidents at San Antonio water parks, a number of liable parties may have all played a certain role in contributing to the accident. Identifying each liable party is imperative toward the outcome of a personal injury or wrongful death case for a number of reasons. First, each liable party is held responsible for awarding a plaintiff their fair share of compensation based on their level of liability for the accident. For instance, if an injured plaintiff incurs $200,000 of total damages as a result of a water park accident in San Antonio and the water park owner is found to be 50% liable for the accident, the owner would only have to award the plaintiff a maximum of $100,000 in the event of a favorable outcome for the plaintiff. The other liable party or parties would then be held responsible for the rest of the total amount of damages incurred by the plaintiff. Secondly, each liable party can be brought to justice through such a civil lawsuit so that their continued negligent behavior does not have to result in further harm or loss caused to someone else.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

Contact San Antonio Water Park Drowning Accident Attorney Michael Grossman

Water park accidents that result in injury often cause the injured victim to incur great financial losses in the way of medical bills, lost wages due to an inability to work, or pain and suffering. Through a personal injury lawsuit in San Antonio, Texas, an injured victim can seek to be compensated for those financial losses so that their physical pain does not have to be compounded by financial stress. In the event of a fatal water park accident, an aggrieved family can seek compensation for their loss, but they can also seek answers to their questions as to why such a tragic accident occurred so that the liable parties can be brought to justice. In either instance, our goal at Grossman Law Offices is to help you seek full and fair compensation for your loss while working to hold the liable parties fully accountable for their negligent behavior.

With twenty years of experience in personal injury and wrongful death cases throughout the country, San Antonio water park drowning accident lawyer Michael Grossman has the experience, knowledge, and reputation that can assist you in seeking legal action against the parties responsible for your injury or loss. When insurance companies become involved in such cases, as they often are, especially in regards to accidents that happen at popular public destinations owned by a company, Michael Grossman has a proven track record that most major insurers are aware of in connection to his ability to help his clients. This means that these insurers, familiar with our abilities, have often chosen to settle out-of-court with our clients instead of choosing to meet our lawyers in a trial case. Should a trial case be necessary in order to defend your rights, we will be just as ready to go to court. However, we will work toward a mediated settlement that is fair for our clients so that you possibly would not have to ever set foot in a courtroom.

If you or a family member has been injured due to a San Antonio water park accident, contact our waterpark accident attorneys toll-free at 1-855-393-0000 for a free and confidential legal consultation. You’ll be able to ask further questions about your possible legal options and receive answers. If legal action is merited so that you can stand to be compensated and so that justice can be served against the parties responsible for your injury or loss, we can help you through that process.


Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.

The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.

Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$78,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$370.00
$400,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Medical Malpractice
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
Total Recovery:
$400,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$132,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Third Party Dram Shop
(policy limits) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$132,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.

Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.

The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$625,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Medical Malpractice
Recovery for family of victim who died after receiving the wrong medication.
Total Recovery:
$625,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$206,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Premises Liability
Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man's death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.

This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.

The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.

Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.

Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Medical Malpractice
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,133.00
Litigation Expenses:
$400.00

"When I Lost My Father..."

Get Adobe Flash player

Our Cases in the News

Get Adobe Flash player

Contact Us

Fill out the form below and a legal professional will contact you shortly.

Full Name:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe your situation:

   

Related Articles

Click to Call

--
Enter your phone number above and click "Call Me" to talk to one of our lawyers about your potential case.

Our Clients' Words

Recent Successes