Supreme Court Holds Hotel Liable for Negligence in Drowning Death Due to Dual Role of Lifeguard: Kerala Tourism Development Corporation vs. Deepti Singh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 March 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 233
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J

Can a hotel be held responsible if a guest drowns in their swimming pool? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, focusing on the duty of care owed by hotels to their guests, particularly concerning safety at swimming facilities. This case highlights the importance of proper supervision and the potential consequences of neglecting safety protocols.

The Supreme Court examined whether a hotel was negligent in the death of a guest who drowned in their swimming pool because the assigned lifeguard was also performing bartending duties. The court considered whether this dual role constituted a breach of the hotel’s duty of care towards its guests.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

On March 21, 2006, Satyendra Pratap Singh, along with his brother, entered the swimming pool at Hotel Samudra in Kovalam, which is managed by the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (KTDC). The incident took place between 6:30 and 7:00 PM. Other guests were also present in the pool at that time. Suddenly, Satyendra Pratap Singh became unconscious and sank in the pool.

A foreign guest present in the pool pulled him out of the water. KTDC claimed that the lifeguard on duty also assisted in the rescue, but the complainants disputed this. Satyendra Pratap Singh was taken to the hospital but was declared dead at 9:30 PM on the same day.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on March 22, 2006, at the Medical College Police Station. Subsequently, a consumer complaint was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by Ms. Deepti Singh, the spouse of the deceased, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, alleging deficiency of service by KTDC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that the hotel management was deficient in service. The NCDRC based its decision on the fact that the lifeguard on duty was also assigned the task of being a bartender. The NCDRC relied on safety guidelines for water sports issued by the National Institute of Water Sports, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, which stated that a lifeguard should not be assigned any other job while on pool duty. The NCDRC concluded that assigning the lifeguard additional duties would distract him and prevent him from closely monitoring the guests in the pool.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the tort of negligence, which involves a breach of duty of care that causes damage. The court highlighted the following elements of negligence:

• A legal duty to exercise due care.
• A breach of that duty.
• Consequential damages resulting from the breach.

The Court also referred to the guidelines issued by the National Institute of Water Sports, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, which specifies the duties of a lifeguard:

“Pool Lifeguard:
“Scope: The regulations contained below are
applicable for lifeguarding at swimming pool, Water Park and
Lake front. The stipulations are being framed to ensure that
the people/participants enjoy swimming/water borne activities
and are free from fear of safety and security;
Life Guarding Instructions:
Duties should not exceed 4 hours at a time.
Area under observation should not exceed 50 meters. More
than, one observation post must be provided for longer/bigger
swimming pools or water parks.
Life guard on active duty should not be distracted while
on duty. No other job shall be assigned to while they are
on pool duty.
Lifeguard should be familiar with standard communication
signals.”

The Court also discussed the concept of duty of care, referencing the House of Lords case, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, which outlines three necessary ingredients for the existence of a duty of care:

• Foreseeability of the damage.
• Proximity of relationship between the parties.
• Whether it is ‘just, fair and reasonable’ that the law should impose a duty of care.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.):

• The appellant disputed the fact that the deceased was pulled out of the water solely by a foreign guest, stating that the lifeguard on duty also assisted in the rescue.
• The appellant argued that it is inexplicable how a 35-year-old able-bodied individual could suddenly drown in the pool, suggesting that the drowning may not be due to negligence.

Arguments by the Respondents (Deepti Singh & Ors.):

• The respondents argued that the finding of the NCDRC that there was a breach of the duty of care is based on solid evidence and should not be interfered with.
• The respondents contended that the compensation awarded by the NCDRC should be enhanced, considering the deceased was a businessman with agricultural income and had excellent future prospects.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether there was negligence on the part of the appellant arising from a breach of the duty of care it owed to the deceased.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Poonam Verma v. Aswin Patel [CITATION]: The Court used this case to define the elements of negligence, which include a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and consequential damages.
• Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum [CITATION]: This case was used to further characterize negligence as “careless conduct” and to emphasize the importance of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
• Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [CITATION]: The Court applied the principles from this case to establish the existence of a duty of care, focusing on foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose such a duty.
• India Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Miss Susan Leigh Beer [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to support the idea that hotels owe a duty of care to their guests, especially concerning the maintenance of safe swimming pool conditions.
• Winfield & Jolowicz on Torts [CITATION]: This text was used to outline the process for determining a breach of duty, including the standard of care expected from a reasonable person.
• BNM on her own behalf and on behalf of others v. National University of Singapore [CITATION]: This case provided guidance on determining negligence in a drowning incident, particularly concerning the lifeguard’s diligence and the circumstances of the incident.
• Reeves v Commissioner of Police [CITATION]: This case was used to discuss the concept of causation, emphasizing the attribution of responsibility.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the fact that the hotel assigned the lifeguard additional duties, which distracted him from his primary responsibility of ensuring the safety of the swimmers. The Court emphasized that the lifeguard was also working as a bartender, which would have taken him away from the pool area, thus breaching the duty of care owed to the guests. The Court also noted that the post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as drowning, and the delay in response due to the lifeguard’s dual role contributed to the death.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Hotels providing swimming pool facilities must ensure that lifeguards are dedicated solely to their duties and are not distracted by other responsibilities.
• Assigning a lifeguard additional duties, such as bartending, can be considered a breach of the duty of care owed to guests.
• Hotels can be held liable for negligence if a guest drowns due to the lack of proper supervision and safety measures.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to safety guidelines and norms provided by relevant authorities.
• The compensation awarded by consumer courts can include interest from the date of filing the complaint, not just from the date of the decision.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the order of the NCDRC by directing that the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the consumer complaint until the date of payment. The KTDC was directed to pay the balance amount within four months from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that hotels have a duty of care to ensure the safety of their guests, particularly when providing facilities like swimming pools. Assigning a lifeguard additional duties that distract from their primary role constitutes a breach of this duty. This judgment reinforces the principle that hotels must prioritize the safety of their guests and adhere to established safety norms, and it clarifies that interest on compensation awarded by consumer courts should be calculated from the date of filing the complaint.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC’s decision, finding the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (KTDC) negligent in the death of a guest who drowned in their hotel’s swimming pool. The court emphasized that the dual role of the lifeguard as a bartender constituted a breach of the hotel’s duty of care. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for hotels to prioritize the safety of their guests by ensuring that lifeguards are dedicated solely to their duties and are not distracted by other responsibilities. The court also modified the NCDRC’s order to include interest from the date of filing the complaint, highlighting the importance of timely compensation for the victims of negligence.