Ethics Case Lorenzo Peterson was swimming in a swimming pool with a friend at an apartment complex. Lorenzo watched his friend swim to the bottom of the pool, slide an unattached drain cover away, and then slide it back. Lorenzo thought his friend had hidden something inside the drain, so he swam to the bottom of the pool. Lorenzo slid the drain cover aside and stuck his arm inside the drain. The 300 to 400 pounds of pull of the drain pump held Lorenzo trapped under-water. At least seven people tried to free Lorenzo to no avail. When the police arrived, they broke down the door to the pool equipment room and turned off the drain pump.
Lorenzo was trapped underwater for twelve minutes, which left him irreversibly brain damaged. Evidence at trial showed that Sta-Rite’s drain covers are designed to screw down, but often a drain cover becomes loose. Further evidence showed that there had been more than 20 prior suction-entrapment accidents involving Sta-Rite’s drain covers and pumps. Evidence showed that others had designed a pool drain pump with a mechanism that would automatically shut off a pool drain pump when it detected that it was pulling more than it should. Sta-Rite did not install such safety features on its drain pumps, however.
Lorenzo, through his relatives, sued Sta-Rite Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of the drain. under the doctrine of strict liability to recover damages for Lorenzo’s injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the underwater pool drain was designed defectively because it did not contain a shut-off mechanism. Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. v. Peterson, 837 So.2d 988, 2003 Fla. App. Lexis 1673 (Court of Appeal of Florida. 2003)
1. Is there a design defect?
2. Did Sta-Rite Industries meet its ethical duty?
3. Should Sta-Rite be assessed punitive damages because it knew there were more than 20 prior suction entrapment accidents?
