Summer in Arizona means backyard barbecues, neighborhood gatherings, and plenty of time in the pool. For families across Phoenix and the surrounding Valley, a swimming pool can be one of the best ways to escape triple-digit temperatures. But pools can also present serious risks, particularly for young children. A drowning or near-drowning can happen in only a few moments. When a child is injured because a property owner, homeowner, landlord, or property manager failed to maintain a reasonably safe pool area, the resulting Arizona summer pool injuries may support a premises liability claim.
Arizona has specific laws governing swimming pool barriers. A.R.S. § 36-1681 establishes minimum enclosure requirements for many residential swimming pools and other qualifying bodies of water. Understanding Arizona’s pool barrier requirements—and how they can intersect with premises liability law—can help families understand their legal options after a serious pool accident.
Read on for this guide from the Phoenix swimming pool injury lawyers at Lerner and Rowe.
What Does A.R.S. § 36-1681 Require?
Arizona’s pool barrier law is designed to prevent unsupervised access to swimming pools and other qualifying bodies of water.
Under Arizona pool barrier law ARS 36-1681, a swimming pool or other contained body of water generally must have an enclosure when it is at least 18 inches deep at any point, more than eight feet wide at any point, and intended for swimming. The statute applies to both below-ground and above-ground pools, subject to certain exceptions.
For covered pools, the law generally requires:
- A wall, fence, or other barrier at least five feet high.
- Openings in the barrier that are small enough to prevent a four-inch spherical object from passing through.
- Gates that are self-closing and self-latching, with specific requirements for latch placement and gate operation.
- Gates that open outward from the pool.
- No accessible openings, handholds, or footholds that could make the barrier easier for children to climb.
- The barrier to be at least 20 inches from the water’s edge.
The statute also provides alternative requirements in certain circumstances when a residence or living area forms part of the pool enclosure. Depending on the circumstances, these alternatives can include a qualifying barrier between the residence and pool, an approved motorized safety pool cover, specific door and window safety devices, or certain above-ground pools with non-climbable exterior walls and secured removable ladders or steps.
There are exceptions to A.R.S. § 36-1681. For example, the statute does not apply to certain agricultural water structures, public or semi-public swimming pools, qualifying pools or barriers constructed before the law’s effective date, and certain residences where all residents are at least six years old. Local ordinances can also impose requirements that are equal to or more stringent than state law.
That last point can be particularly important in the Phoenix area. Local building and safety requirements may apply in addition to state law. Phoenix’s pool-code materials, for example, reference the five-foot barrier requirement established under A.R.S. § 36-1681.
Why Pool Barrier Violations Matter after an Injury
A violation of Arizona’s pool barrier statute does not automatically mean a homeowner or property manager is liable for every injury that occurs in or around the pool.
However, evidence that a required safety barrier was absent or did not comply with the law may be relevant when determining whether the property owner or other responsible party acted reasonably.
Consider a situation in which a child enters a backyard through an unsecured gate, falls into the pool, and suffers a near-drowning injury. Investigators may need to determine:
- Was a pool barrier required?
- Was the barrier the required height?
- Was the gate self-closing and self-latching?
- Was the latch properly positioned?
- Were there openings a child could fit through?
- Was the fence climbable?
- Had the owner previously been warned about a defective gate or fence?
- Did the owner know children were regularly present on the property?
- Was the dangerous condition repaired or ignored?
These questions can help establish what the property owner knew or should have known and whether reasonable precautions were taken.
A pool barrier violation can therefore become an important piece of evidence in a broader premises liability pool injury claim in Arizona.
Arizona Summer Pool Injuries: Arizona’s Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Pool cases involving children can be especially complicated when the child was not formally invited onto the property.
Ordinarily, Arizona law limits the duty a property possessor owes to a trespasser. Under A.R.S. § 12-557, a possessor of real property generally does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from causing intentional, willful, or wanton injury.
But Arizona recognizes the attractive nuisance doctrine, which can affect cases involving children who trespass onto property because of a dangerous artificial condition.
In Armenta v. City of Casa Grande, an Arizona Court of Appeals decision explained that the doctrine can impose liability when specific circumstances are present. Those circumstances include situations in which the property possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass, the condition presents an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm, children because of their youth may not appreciate the danger, the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared with the risk, and the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate or protect against the danger.
Swimming pools can present the kind of serious danger that makes these issues particularly important.
For example, imagine a homeowner has a backyard pool immediately adjacent to a neighborhood where young children frequently play. The homeowner knows children can easily access the yard because a pool gate does not latch properly. If the homeowner does nothing to correct the problem and a child subsequently enters the yard and suffers a drowning injury, the circumstances may raise questions under both pool safety requirements and the attractive nuisance doctrine.
The specific facts matter. A lawyer evaluating the case will need to examine the child’s age, how the child accessed the property, the condition of the pool and barriers, what the property owner knew, and whether reasonable safety measures were available.
What If the Child Was Trespassing?
Property owners and their insurers may argue that a child was trespassing and therefore the owner should not be responsible for the resulting injury.
That defense can be significant under Arizona law, but it does not necessarily end the analysis when the injured person is a child.
The attractive nuisance doctrine exists precisely because children may not understand or appreciate certain dangers in the same way adults do. Arizona courts have recognized that the doctrine can apply when an artificial condition creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury to children who may be attracted onto the property.
In addition, the facts surrounding the alleged trespass may matter. For example, a child who wandered through an open or broken gate may present a substantially different situation from an adult who deliberately entered a fenced property after being expressly prohibited from doing so.
Families should not assume that a property owner’s claim of “trespassing” automatically prevents an injury claim.
What About Lack of Notice?
Another common defense in premises liability cases is that the property owner did not know about the dangerous condition.
For example, an insurer might argue that the homeowner did not know the pool gate was defective and therefore should not be held responsible for an accident that occurred when the gate unexpectedly failed.
Evidence of notice can become extremely important.
A claim may involve questions such as:
- Did someone previously tell the owner that the gate was broken?
- Had the gate failed to latch before?
- Were there prior complaints about children entering the property?
- Did a pool inspection identify safety problems?
- Were repairs previously requested?
- How long had the unsafe condition existed?
- Was the owner regularly responsible for inspecting and maintaining the pool area?
A property owner does not necessarily escape responsibility simply because they claim they personally did not see a dangerous condition. Depending on the circumstances, evidence may establish that the owner knew or should have known about the hazard.
Arizona Summer Pool Injuries: Risks in Phoenix
The Phoenix metropolitan area is particularly familiar with the risks associated with swimming pools. Hot Arizona summers make residential pools a common feature of homes throughout the Valley, while children may spend much of their summer vacation in and around the water at places like Oasis Water Park or Hurricane Harbor Phoenix.
The Arizona Department of Health Services maintains statewide drowning data, including information concerning drowning deaths involving children and the locations where fatal drownings occur. The state’s data demonstrates why drowning prevention remains an important public safety issue.
For homeowners, maintaining a compliant pool barrier is an important part of reducing the risk of an unsupervised child entering the water.
For families dealing with a pool injury, the prevalence of residential pools also means there can be many potential settings in which a premises liability issue arises: private homes, rental properties, apartment complexes, vacation rentals, community properties, and other residential locations.
The responsible party may not always be the person who owns the property. Depending on the circumstances, a claim may involve a landlord, property management company, homeowner, tenant, maintenance company, or another party responsible for maintaining the premises.
Arizona Summer Pool Injuries FAQs
1. What is Arizona’s pool barrier law?
A.R.S. § 36-1681 generally requires qualifying swimming pools and contained bodies of water to have an enclosure. Covered pools generally require a barrier at least five feet high, with specific requirements concerning openings, gates, latches, climbability, and the barrier’s distance from the water. Exceptions apply.
2. Can I file a claim if my child was injured in someone else’s pool?
Possibly. The viability of a personal injury claim depends on factors including who controlled the property, whether the property owner or another responsible party was negligent, whether the pool complied with applicable safety requirements, how the child accessed the pool, and the circumstances surrounding the injury.
3. Does trespassing prevent a child from recovering after a pool injury?
Not necessarily. Arizona generally limits a property possessor’s duty to trespassers, but the attractive nuisance doctrine can impose liability in certain circumstances involving children and dangerous artificial conditions. The specific facts of the incident must be evaluated.
4. What if the homeowner says they did not know the pool gate was defective?
Lack of actual knowledge does not necessarily resolve a premises liability claim. Evidence concerning how long the condition existed, previous complaints, inspections, repairs, maintenance records, and other circumstances may help establish whether the property owner knew or should have known about the danger.
5. How long do I have to file an Arizona pool injury lawsuit?
Arizona’s general statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years under ARS § 12-542. Different deadlines or exceptions may apply depending on the circumstances, including the identity of the responsible party and the nature of the claim.
Get Help after Arizona Summer Pool Injuries
A drowning or near-drowning can change a family’s life in an instant. When a child is injured in a residential swimming pool, determining who is responsible may require more than simply asking who owned the pool. Arizona’s pool barrier requirements, premises liability principles, trespasser rules, and attractive nuisance doctrine can all become relevant.
If your child or another family member suffered a serious injury in a Phoenix-area swimming pool, consider speaking with an experienced child drowning accident attorney in Arizona about your legal options.
Lerner and Rowe’s Phoenix personal injury attorneys can review the circumstances surrounding the accident, investigate the condition of the property and pool barrier, identify potentially responsible parties, and explain your options for pursuing compensation.
You can call the Phoenix office, submit a contact form, or use LiveChat to request a free consultation. Our attorneys are available 24/7 and do not charge a fee unless money is recovered on the client’s behalf. If your family is dealing with the aftermath of a serious pool accident, do not wait to learn whether you may have a claim.
The information on this blog is for general information purposes only. Nothing herein should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.