In the case of Justice v. Bestway (USA), Inc., a Pools & Spas Expert Witness played a central role in evaluating the safety and design of an above-ground pool involved in a tragic drowning incident. The case revolved around product liability, design defects, and the adequacy of safety warnings, and ultimately resulted in a significant jury verdict.
Background of the Case
In 2021, Ellieanna Justice, a six-year-old girl, tragically drowned after climbing into a four-foot-deep above-ground pool manufactured by Bestway (USA), Inc. The pool had been set up in the family’s backyard and was accessible at the time of the incident. Ellieanna’s parents, Annaleah and Kyle Justice, filed a wrongful death and product liability lawsuit against Bestway, alleging that the pool’s design was inherently dangerous, especially to children, and lacked adequate warnings or safety instructions to prevent unsupervised access.
The plaintiffs claimed that the pool’s walls could be scaled by a child and that Bestway failed to take reasonable steps to warn consumers or provide adequate safety measures such as childproof barriers or locking ladders.
Role of the Pools & Spas Expert Witness
The plaintiffs retained a Pools & Spas Expert Witness with a background in aquatic safety and pool design standards to assess the pool’s construction, safety features, and labeling. The expert’s responsibilities included:
-
Evaluating the Pool’s Design: Determining whether the pool’s wall height, materials, and configuration made it possible for a child to climb in without assistance or adult supervision.
-
Assessing Industry Compliance: Comparing the pool’s design against industry safety standards and guidelines, including those from ASTM International and other recognized safety organizations.
-
Reviewing Warnings and Instructions: Analyzing the product’s packaging and manuals to determine whether the warnings provided were clear, visible, and sufficient to alert users about drowning risks and the need for supervision.
The expert concluded that the pool lacked appropriate safety features to prevent child access and did not provide adequate warnings or instructions for safe installation and use. The opinion supported the plaintiffs’ claim that the design was unsafe and that Bestway failed to mitigate foreseeable risks.
Court Proceedings and Findings
During the trial, the expert witness testified about how quickly and easily a child could scale the pool walls and gain access to the water, even without a ladder. The expert emphasized that safer designs—such as taller, smooth-sided walls or locking access systems—were available and could have reasonably been implemented.
The defense argued that the pool was properly labeled and that adult supervision was the primary safeguard against drowning. However, the jury found that Bestway bore significant responsibility for the incident, based largely on the expert’s testimony about the foreseeability of a child accessing the pool and the company’s failure to adopt safer design practices or provide adequate warnings.
The jury ultimately found Bestway 65% at fault and awarded $25 million in damages to the Justice family. The remaining liability was attributed to other parties, but the bulk of the judgment rested on the design and warning deficiencies identified by the plaintiffs’ expert.
Legal Significance
This case underscores the vital role of Pools & Spas Expert Witnesses in litigation involving product safety and consumer injury. The expert’s ability to clearly articulate the design flaws and deficiencies in safety warnings helped the jury understand how the incident could have been prevented. The case also reinforces the importance of manufacturers adhering to high safety standards and anticipating foreseeable risks, particularly when products are intended for residential use.
Conclusion
Justice v. Bestway (USA), Inc. illustrates how expert testimony can be decisive in product liability cases involving pools and spas. The Pools & Spas Expert Witness provided the technical foundation that enabled the plaintiffs to prove design flaws and inadequate warnings, ultimately leading to a significant verdict. The case serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical responsibilities manufacturers bear when it comes to safety and risk communication.