BNM v National University of Singapore: Negligence, Drowning, and Duty of Care

In BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of ors v National University of Singapore and anor, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the drowning of B at the National University of Singapore's swimming pool. BNM, B's widow, sued the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Hydro Aquatic Swimming School (Hydro Aquatic), the company contracted to provide lifeguards, for negligence. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, dismissed the claims, finding that while the lifeguards were negligent in their duties, their negligence did not cause B's death due to his pre-existing severe heart condition. The court also dismissed Hydro Aquatic’s claim against Overseas Assurance Corporation Limited. The claim was for negligence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims against National University of Singapore and Hydro Aquatic dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case concerning the drowning of B at NUS swimming pool. Widow, BNM, sued for negligence. Court dismissed claims, finding no causation.

1.7 Decision Date

8 January 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of ors	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Beh Eng Siew
National University of Singapore	Defendant	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Anparasan s/o Kamachi
Hydro Aquatic Swimming School	Defendant	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	K P Allagarsamy
Overseas Assurance Corporation Limited	Other	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Yuen Simon

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Beh Eng Siew	Lee Bon Leong & Co
Anparasan s/o Kamachi	KhattarWong
K P Allagarsamy	Allagarsamy & Co
Yuen Simon	Legal Clinic

4. Facts

B, an IT network manager, drowned at the NUS swimming pool on June 6, 2007.
NUS had contracted Hydro Aquatic to provide lifeguard services.
The lifeguards on duty, Cheong and Chua, were not trained in using the AED or Oxyviva.
B had a severe pre-existing heart condition, including significant arterial blockages.
CPR was administered, and an AED was eventually used, but B could not be revived.
The autopsy report cited drowning with ischaemic heart disease as the cause of death.
The lifeguards were not attentive and did not notice B struggling in the water.

5. Formal Citations

BNM (administratrix of the estate of B, deceased) on her own behalf and on behalf of ors v National University of Singapore and anor, Suit No 954 of 2009, [2014] SGHC 5

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-01	NUS decided to outsource the supply of lifeguards and cleaning of the swimming pool.
2006-10-19	Hydro Aquatic submitted first tender.
2006-11-27	Hydro Aquatic submitted resubmitted tender document.
2007-04-01	Hydro Aquatic awarded contract to supply lifeguards and clean the swimming pool.
2007-06-06	B drowned at NUS swimming pool.
2007-09-19	NUS conducted a review of the safety conditions at the pool and communicated the findings to Lim Kay Seng.
2008-06-17	Coroner’s inquiry recorded a verdict of misadventure.
2009-01-01	Suit No 954 of 2009 filed.
2014-01-09	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that while the lifeguards were negligent, their negligence did not cause the Deceased's death.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of duty of care
  - Causation
  - Standard of care
Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that NUS's duty of care to provide properly trained lifeguards was a delegable duty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delegation of duty
  - Scope of duty
  - Non-delegable duty
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the Deceased's pre-existing heart condition was the proximate cause of his death, not the lifeguards' negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Proximate cause
  - Intervening cause
  - Pre-existing condition
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: Not applicable.
- Category: Substantive
Insurance Coverage
- Outcome: The court initially ruled that Hydro Aquatic was entitled to an indemnity from OAC under its policy, but this became moot as the claim against Hydro Aquatic was dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Policy interpretation
  - Exclusion clauses

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Education
Recreation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 284	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the law of occupiers’ liability is subsumed within the tort of negligence.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for the elements of a claim in negligence and the test for duty of care.
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman	Australian High Court	Yes	(1985) 60 ALR 1	Australia	Cited for the notions of physical proximity, circumstantial proximity and causal proximity.
Anne Teresa Hanlon or Gallacher v City of Glasgow District Council	Inner House	Yes	(1983) Inner House Cases 122	Scotland	Cited as a case where a local authority was found negligent for the drowning of an adult patron due to the attendant's failure to notice the deceased in trouble.
Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2013] UKSC 66	United Kingdom	Cited for the discussion on non-delegable duties of care.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 2 AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of vicarious liability.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 2 AC 145	United Kingdom	Cited for the assumption of a positive duty of care arising out of a special relationship.
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English	Unknown	Yes	[1938] AC 57	United Kingdom	Cited for the employer's non-delegable duty to ensure a safe system of work.
Gold v Essex County Council	Unknown	Yes	[1942] 2 KB 293	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that hospital authorities have an obligation to the patient.
Cassidy v Ministry of Health	Unknown	Yes	[1951] 2 KB 343	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that hospital authorities have an obligation to the patient.
Commonwealth v Introvigne	Unknown	Yes	(19820 150 CLR 258	Australia	Cited for expanding on the principles identified in Gold and Cassidy.
Kondis v State Transport Authority	Unknown	Yes	(1984) 154 CLR 672	Australia	Cited for expanding on the principles identified in Gold and Cassidy.
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty	Unknown	Yes	(1994) 179 CLR 520	Australia	Cited for expanding on the principles identified in Gold and Cassidy.
New South Wales v Lepore	Unknown	Yes	(2003) 212 CLR 511	Australia	Cited for expanding on the principles identified in Gold and Cassidy.
PlanAssure PAC v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 513	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the standard of care is based on the standard of reasonableness at the time of the tortious event.
MCST Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 613	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an employer can be liable for the negligence of its contractor if it was negligent in appointing the contractor.
Performing Right Society, Limited v Mitchell and Booker (Palais de Danse), Limited	Unknown	Yes	[1924] 1 KB 762	United Kingdom	Cited for the test to determine if a party is an independent contractor.
Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another v Socomec SA	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 1057	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that a party setting a higher standard of care must adhere to it.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668 v Rott George Hugo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 114	Singapore	Cited for the principle that following industry standards does not immunize a party from negligence if the standards are unreasonable.
Edward Wong Finance Ltd v Johnson, Stokes and Masters	Privy Council	Yes	[1984] 1 AC 290	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that following industry standards does not immunize a party from negligence if the standards are unreasonable.
Crupi v Royal Ottawa Hospital	Unknown	Yes	1988 Carswell Ont 584	Canada	Cited as a distinguishable case where lifeguards were found not negligent in a drowning incident at a beach.
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Maxse	Unknown	Yes	[1919] 1 KB 647	United Kingdom	Cited for the definition of a 'professional'.
Singapore Telecommunications Limited v Starhub Cable Vision	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 195	Singapore	Cited for the principle that exclusion clauses should be construed strictly.
Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1856) 11 Ex 781	United Kingdom	Cited for the appropriate standard of care is that which could be expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Lifeguard
Drowning
Negligence
Duty of Care
Causation
AED
Oxyviva
Ischaemic Heart Disease
Cardiac Arrhythmia
Independent Contractor
Non-Delegable Duty

15.2 Keywords

drowning
negligence
lifeguard
NUS
heart condition
duty of care
causation
swimming pool

16. Subjects

Negligence
Personal Injury
Contract Law
Insurance Law
Occupier's Liability

17. Areas of Law

Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's Liability
Contract Law
Insurance Law