"Explaining Safety Rules Does Not Fulfill Work Obligations"
As accidents involving children drowning in swimming pools less than 1 meter deep continue to occur, a ruling has been made holding swimming pool owners responsible for management duties.
On the 24th, the Uijeongbu District Court Goyang Branch Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Sang-yeop Lee) announced that it sentenced cafe owner A, who was charged with involuntary manslaughter, to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment without labor. Imprisonment without labor means being confined in prison without being required to perform labor.
Since 2020, A has operated a cafe in Deogyang-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi Province, which has five swimming pools installed, each with a depth of 85 cm and a floor area of 21 square meters. On September 12, 2021, B (5 years old), who visited the cafe with a guardian, was playing in the swimming pool when his hand got caught in the drain. B was taken to the hospital but died the next morning.
B’s family posted a message titled "A 6-year-old child lost their precious life unfairly at a swimming pool cafe. Please help" on the Blue House National Petition Board to raise awareness of the accident. The petitioner at the time pointed out, "If there is such a dangerous water circulation or drainage system inside the swimming pool, the cafe should have warned the guardian in advance about the danger, but there was no prior warning at all," and added, "There was no safety monitoring CCTV for the hazardous facility nor a screen to view it, so parents inside could not respond quickly to the accident."
During the trial, A argued that the cafe owner had no duty of care in the course of business, and even if there was, it was not causally related to this incident, but the court did not accept this.
The court acknowledged that on the day of the accident, the owner verbally explained safety rules to B’s guardian. This explanation was to the effect that "the swimming pool safety personnel are the guardians and users themselves, and the cafe is not responsible for civil or criminal liability in case of safety accidents," and such safety rules were posted in the cafe at the time. However, the court judged that this explanation alone did not fulfill A’s duty of care in the course of business.
The court stated, "Simply informing customers of possible dangers in a general and abstract manner does not fulfill the duty of care in the course of business. The duty of care is fulfilled only when reasonable measures are taken to prepare for cases where customers unintentionally violate usage restrictions," and pointed out, "The defendant could have taken measures such as covering the swimming pool drain or installing protective nets but did not do so." The court added, "If the owner had fulfilled the duty of care, this accident would likely not have occurred."
Regarding sentencing, the court explained, "Despite the serious consequence of the victim’s death caused by A’s negligence in the course of business, A was eager to shift responsibility for this fatal accident to others, showing a serious level of responsibility and poor character," and "The defendant has not yet reached a settlement with the victim’s family."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
