A Hong Kong woman (referred to as B) drowned in a hotel swimming pool in Macau, and after she passed away her husband (referred to as A) sued the hotel owner (referred to as C) and the life guard (referred to as D) for allegedly being responsible for her death, but the court ruled that his accusation lacked evidence, the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) said in a recent statement.
According to the statement, A and B travelled to Macau from Hong Kong in July 2010, and stayed at a hotel owned by C. The statement said that on the same day, A and B went to the hotel’s outdoor pool, adding that at 6:08.29 p.m. the life guard heard B’s scream for help. The statement said that the life guard jumped into the deep end of the pool and rescued B at 6:09.30 p.m., then proceeded to perform a lifesaving procedure on B. However, the statement noted, B was in a coma for 49 days then passed away on August 18, 2010. The statement said that the woman’s husband and her mother (referred to as E) thought that the hotel owner and the life guard should be held responsible for her death, so they took the matter to the Court of First Instance (TJB).
The statement said that A accused D of not patrolling the deep end of the pool as the husband claimed that it took up to five minutes for the life guard to try to rescue his wife, which allegedly was the direct cause to her death. The statement said that the husband also complained that the hotel owner should have arranged more life guards at the pool as there was only one when the incident occurred. The statement pointed out that the husband said that C and D should face omission charges (Civil Code Article 479) – a failure to act on a legally imposed duty leading to a consequence, adding that they should be held liable for the wife’s death.
The statement noted that the court ruled, however, that there was no proof that the life guard only reacted five minutes after the woman started drowning. Instead the evidence showed that as soon as the life guard realised that the woman was drowning, he immediately tried to rescue her within a minute or so. Therefore, the court said, the life guard fulfilled his duty.
Meanwhile, regarding the hotel owner, the statement said, as the law does not stipulate how many life guards have to be present at a pool, he or she cannot be held liable for not having more life guards at the outdoor swimming pool. The statement also pointed out that as there was no direct correlation to show that how having more life guards would have altered the outcome of the situation, the hotel owner could not be held accountable for the woman’s death. Therefore, the TBJ judge ruled that the husband’s accusations were invalid.
The husband and the woman’s mother disagreed with the ruling, the statement said, so they appealed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI). According to the statement, the TSI panel of judges pointed out that A and E’s accusation is groundless. The statement also said that neither could provide new evidence but tried to use a subjective argument to blame the hotel owner and the life guard for the woman’s death. Therefore, the statement concluded, the panel rejected the appeal.
