Abu Dhabi: A recreational trip organised by a Quran memorisation centre ended in tragedy after a child drowned at a club swimming pool. The group of children had been left without adequate supervision before the swimming coach took over, in an incident that proved fatal. Two supervisors were subsequently convicted of causing the child’s death by mistake, with each fined Dh1,000 and ordered jointly to pay the legal blood money.
The Federal Supreme Court, in a ruling rejecting an appeal by one of the supervisors, affirmed that the responsibility for the care of children does not end as soon as they are escorted to their destination, but continues until they are handed over to the next supervisor responsible for their care. The Court stressed that the mere arrival of children at the facility does not mean that the responsibility for their care is automatically transferred to the employees therein.
In detail, the incident began when a supervisor took a group of children affiliated with a Quran memorisation centre on a recreational trip to a club's swimming pool, but he left them after they arrived at the destination, and before the swimming coach took over and actually began supervising them.
During the period when direct supervision was absent, one of the children entered the swimming pool for the first time, and due to his inability to swim, he drowned.
The Public Prosecution referred two people to trial on charges of causing the death of the child through their negligence. The first was the person responsible for supervision at the swimming pool, and the second was the supervisor who brought the children from the Quran memorisation centre. They were accused of failing to fulfil their duties of care and supervision, and of not taking the necessary precautions to maintain the safety of the children.
The Court concluded that both defendants failed in their duty as required by the nature of their responsibility, since the necessary effective supervision to protect the children from the dangers of entering the swimming pool was not provided, which allowed the accident that killed the child to occur.
The Court of First Instance convicted the defendants, fined each of them Dh1,000, and obligated them to pay the legal blood money jointly. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, while the supervisor who took the children appealed it before the Federal Supreme Court, maintaining that he was not responsible for the accident.
The supervisor based his appeal on the fact that his job was limited to taking the children to the club, and that his responsibility for them ended as soon as they arrived at the pool, considering that supervision inside the facility is the responsibility of those in charge of it and the swimming coach.
However, the Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument, stressing that the mere arrival of the children at the place designated for the activity does not mean that the responsibility for their care automatically transfers from the person assigned to accompany them to those in charge of the facility, unless an actual handover is achieved that ensures the presence of a person who takes charge of supervising and monitoring them.
The Court explained that the supervisor was obligated to stay with the children until the swimming coach took over and began performing his duties, especially since the group included a child entering the pool for the first time who did not know how to swim. These were circumstances that required special care and clear warning about his condition before allowing him to approach or enter the swimming pool.
It stressed that the supervisor’s duty was not limited to transporting the children to the club, but also included ensuring their continued care and not leaving them during a period when supervision was interrupted, noting the need to inform the person who would be supervising about the child’s condition and his ability to swim, so that he could take the necessary precautions to protect him.
The Court considered that leaving children in the pool with the assumption that someone else would supervise them does not constitute an actual handover whereby the responsibility for care is transferred, since the person who will be entrusted with the task of supervision must be aware of the presence of the children and their condition, and must have received them and actually begun to supervise them.
It stressed that the responsibility of the person who takes care of a child remains in place throughout the period that the child is in his care, and does not end as soon as he is brought into a facility or place designated for the activity, as long as he has not confirmed that supervision of him has been effectively transferred to another person.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the supervisor’s appeal and upheld his conviction for causing the child’s death by mistake, stressing that the duty to care for children does not stop at delivering them to their destination, but extends to ensuring their safe delivery to those who will supervise them.
The Federal Supreme Court established in its ruling a judicial principle stipulating that the supervisor’s responsibility for the safety of children continues throughout their stay in his custody, and does not end as soon as they reach their destination, unless he is certain that they have actually been handed over to a person who will take care of them, stressing that the interruption of supervision, even for a short period, may entail criminal liability when the error and its relation to the death are proven.