Sari Budi Hotel & Resort Sdn Bhd said in its defence filed against a negligence suit by the victim’s father that the victim was informed of the risk of swimming and was responsible for his own conduct.
On Oct 1, M Sugumaran Naidu, filed a negligence suit against the hotel operator after his son drowned in a swimming pool that was not supervised by a lifeguard in 2021.
The lorry driver, who is acting for the estate of his son S Naidu, is seeking special damages that include bereavement and funeral expenses amounting to about RM26,000.
The 60-year-old man has also filed a dependency claim and wants the court to assess damages if the suit is allowed.
In the statement of claim filed at the sessions court in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Sugumaran said his 21-year-old son was earning RM2,500 per month as an air-con serviceman but gave his family about RM1,000 a month.
Sugumaran is also seeking exemplary damages and other relief deemed fit by the court.
In the statement of claim filed by solicitors R Kengadharan & Co on Oct 1 this year, Sugumaran said his son, who is from Kampung Jawa, Klang, checked into the hotel located at 5th Mile, Jalan Pantai Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, on Oct 2, 2021.
The following day he used the swimming pool during operating hours.
The plaintiff said his son, an amateur swimmer, was found drowned at the nine-foot-deep part of the pool.
He said the defendant was responsible for the death as there was no lifeguard present to rescue his son, there was no respiratory support equipment available at the pool and there was also no notification on the depth of the pool.
However, in its defence filed by solicitors Goik, Ramesh & Loo early this month, Sari Budi Hotel & Resort said the plaintiff had named the wrong party.
Alternatively, it said, the accident was caused solely by, or contributed in part by, the negligence of the deceased, including failing to keep any proper lookout for the depth marker of the pool.
The defendant said the deceased was fully apprised of the risk of swimming and that the deceased voluntarily undertook the risk and should be held responsible for his conduct.
In urging the court to dismiss the suit with costs, the defendant said there was a disclaimer notice at the pool.