and holding that the 1-and-a-half-year-old child “could not reasonably be expected to realize or appreciate the danger” of a swimming pool); Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35, 748 N.E.2d 41, 44-45 (2001) (reversing and remanding a grant of summary judgment that dismissed a negligence claim on behalf of a 5-year-old child who drowned in a pool, and stating, in the context of determining whether water is an obvious danger, that landowners cannot reasonably expect “[c]hildren of tender years” to exercise the “same discernment and foresight in discovering defects and dangers ... that older and experienced persons habitually employ” (quoting Di Gildo v. Caponi, 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 247 N.E.2d 732, 734 (1969))); Eaton v. R.B. George Invs., Inc., 152 Tex. 523, 260 S.W.2d 587, 591 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., 129
holding as a matter of law that a child of the tender age of 3 years and 8 months could not have realized the risk or danger of an artificial body of water holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger holding that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the physical endangerment portion of the statute when the defendant was charged only with the risk of injury to a child by doing an act likely to impair the morals of a child under the age of sixteen holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law