Paralyzed after Dawn Diving: "90% of Responsibility Lies with the Individual"

[Judgment Result]

The court ruled that if a pension guest suffered paralysis of limbs after diving into a shallow swimming pool provided at the pension around 4 a.m., 90% of the responsibility lies with the guest, and 10% with the pension operator.

The photo is not related to the specific content of the article. Pixabay

원본보기 아이콘

The Civil Division 11 of Seoul Eastern District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Jeong-gon) on December 6 ruled in the partial favor of plaintiff A (24 years old at the time of the accident, male) in a damages claim lawsuit (2023gahap109549) against pension operator B, ordering B to pay approximately 179.95 million KRW to A.

[Facts]

B operated a pension in Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon Province, and installed a swimming pool as an auxiliary facility for guests to use. Around 4 a.m. in July 2020, A dived into the pool and hit his head on the bottom, resulting in paralysis of limbs and other injuries. The swimming pool consisted of a swimming pool and a surrounding wooden deck, installed on an open space of the pension at a height roughly from an adult’s chest to waist. A claimed that “B did not mark the pool depth, did not prohibit diving, nor had personnel or equipment to immediately take protective measures in case of an accident,” and filed a lawsuit asserting that B, as the occupier of the pool, was liable for damages due to defects in installation and maintenance of the pool and breach of duty to protect pension and pool users.

[Court’s Judgment]

The court recognized that the accident was caused by defects in the installation or maintenance of the swimming pool and held B liable for compensation. However, considering that A was an adult with the ability to judge risks and discern right from wrong, and that during his two-day stay before the accident he was sufficiently aware that the pool depth was about waist-high and that diving was dangerous but dived anyway, the court limited B’s liability to 10%.

The court stated, “Given the height of the pool, diving in a diving posture would very likely cause the body to hit the bottom forcefully. B should have warned users not to dive or posted warning signs to prevent the risk of accidents in advance.” It noted that although a no-diving sign was attached to the inner wall of the pool, it was not separately prepared by B but was a small product information label attached to the pool product, and considering its location and size, it would have been difficult for users to see it at night. Also, there was no depth marking.

The court also pointed out that neither B nor the pension staff took prior verbal warnings or other measures regarding accidents that could occur due to the shallow depth of the pool.

The court added, “No facilities were installed to block access to the pool at night, nor were covers placed to prevent use. B claimed that ‘although the entrance stairs were blocked at night, A forcibly crossed over and used the pool,’ but the part B claimed as a fence was actually a wooden deck installed adjacent to the pool height to serve as a walking and play area for users, not a structure to control access, and it was an open structure low enough to be easily climbed by hand, so it cannot be considered that blocking facilities were installed.”

Furthermore, the court noted that around 4 a.m., the pool area was dark and the pool floor lighting was off, making it difficult to judge the distance from the bottom when swimming in the dark, increasing the risk of accidents.

The court assessed A’s financial losses including medical expenses due to the accident at approximately 1.69952 billion KRW and ordered the pension operator to pay A 10% of this amount plus 10 million KRW in consolation money, totaling approximately 179.95 million KRW.

Park Su-yeon, Reporter, Legal Newspaper

※This article was written based on content provided by the Legal Newspaper.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.