If You Have Rules, You Must Enforce Them By Mike Pulk

There have been numerous claims lost in the Evergreen program simply because the campground was not enforcing the rules they had established.

What are a few examples of these claim losses? A park had listed in their lease agreement that no fences were allowed in individual sites. In the evening, an elderly guest of the site owner decided to take a short cut through the site to another site. She wasn’t watching where she was going and tripped over a wooden plank about 2 feet above the ground. The plank was part of an older fence that began to fall down and rot and was then just neglected. There were plank boards rotting on the ground with pine needles over them where the fence once ran. In the lease agreement it said “No fences, barriers, rope lines, rock walls, retaining walls, etc., are allowed to be erected between sites.” There had been 3 owners prior to the accident and the same lease agreement was used for each successive owner. No one took the time to read the agreement and then enforce it. The elderly lady broke her arm and sued the campground and won. The main reason listed in the court docket was that rules in the lease agreement were not enforced. It wasn’t the only site that had a fence and some sites had fences recently erected. It was hard to defend this claim in court, especially since new fences were being erected when the claims adjuster arrived.

Another claim attributed to the campground not enforcing rules on the books occurred when a site owner’s dog was allowed to roam free throughout the campground. There were some witnesses who attested to the fact that the campground owner never enforced that dogs must be on a leash at all times in the park, even though it was in the standard rule sheet. According to witness testimony, guests at the park complained to the campground owner that some dogs were not being leashed. One day in mid-summer a visitor in the park was making a left turn onto a paved site road with expensive park models lining both sides. As he began to press on the gas peddle and straighten out the wheel, a large dog coming from the right ran across the vehicle’s path. To avoid the dog the driver stopped straightening out the wheel and jerked hard to the left while traveling about 15 miles per hours. The driver didn’t have time to brake and plowed into another vehicle parked in the site’s driveway. The force of the moving vehicle was enough to push the immobile sub compact car into the front of the park model. The damage to the sub compact was $1,700 and the damage to the park model was $4,200. Imagine if there was a pedestrian in the driveway or on the street? Everyone possible was sued by the site owner – the visitor, the dog owner, and the campground. The campground could have avoided any monetary settlement if they had just enforced the dog on a leash rule. Since they hadn’t and witnesses attested to this fact, part of the settlement was divided by the dog owner and the campground; there was also an added financial settlement for the lot owners for loss of use to their unit, since theyhad to vacate the park model while it was being repaired. The driver of the vehicle’s insurance company sued successfully and the damages to his vehicle was covered by both the campground and the dog’s owner.

A third example of a campground being held liable for not enforcing their rules, happened when a child was allowed to swim in the campground’s swimming pool unattended by adult supervision. Not only was the rule posted on the front gate of the swimming pool, it was posted on the rule sheet

that gets passed out to everyone that enters the campground. Once again, witnesses testified that the campground did a poor job at enforcing their rules. When brought to the campground’s attention that not just one child was left unattended, but numerous children didn’t seem to have adult supervision (creating a rather noisy and boisterous swimming environment), the campground told a few guests that they were not babysitters and the children were the responsibility of the parents. Well this is of course true, but in a commercial setting where a pool is operated for public use, specific issues of due care and providing a safe environment for your guests becomes a serious issue. On top of this, the owner/manager had a clear view of the pool from the office/registration building, and had a hard time in court dispelling the prosecution’s story that he “periodically supervised the pool.”

Any kind of safety issue brought to the attention of the campground staff should be immediately investigated. How the issue was resolved should be documented. Not only was nothing in this case remedied, when brought to the attention to the campground staff they displayed an “irritated and belligerent attitude” towards the person(s) reporting. Some guests decided to stop going to the pool altogether.

By mid-afternoon one summer day, with the pool receiving heavy use and more than likely exceeding pool capacity, 2 sisters swimming in the deep end told their mother that they had stepped on someone at the bottom of the pool and the person was still there. The alarms were sounded and 2 men dove into the pool and found the eight year old boy unconscious. According to a witness, a few days earlier the same boy had been seen swimming and hanging around the pool with no adults. Although it wasn’t clarified in court if this child was reported to the campground as unsupervised, it was felt by the court that there was enough evidence from people interviewed that the campground was not enforcing that children must be supervised by an adult. The parents filed suit and won a big settlement even though it was primarily their responsibility to watch their child; to the court this was secondary.

It should be clarified that everything at the pool was in code: life ring, shepherd’s crook, depth markings, no diving signs, and pool signs on both the inside and outside gate with all the correct information listed on them. Many times the monetary settlement is based on safety details; usually the more details lacking means a higher monetary settlement. In this case most everything was there that the prosecution is looking for, except the fact that when you post rules and guidelines for your guests to follow, you must enforce them. You can’t escape having the rules there; it’s one of the requirements at pools and beaches; but they mean nothing if you don’t hold the guest to them.

Don’t expect that just because you have a thorough set of rules on paper or on signs, that your job of enforcing these rules is done. You must let folks know that you are serious about this rule or that rule; and when you find someone breaking the rule let them know, and better yet, let others around you know. When you verbalize to someone that they have broken a rule, you have in effect told the courts that you take the responsibility of providing a safe environment seriously. If a witness was to hear you enforcing the rules, this is a sure bet that the courts will take this into account and find it much harder to prove you don’t care about the welfare of your guests.