A woman is suing the National University of Singapore (NUS) claiming the university was negligent after her husband drowned in a swimming pool on campus.

As reported in The Straits Times, Madame Teong Hui Ching, is seeking $1 million in damages after her husband, Mr Roland Yeo, 20 years old, drowned after suffering a sudden heart attack in the university's Olympic size pool on June 6, 2007.

After getting into difficulty barely 15 minutes into his weekly swim with friend Mr Er, Mr Yeo struggled and sank to the pool floor. Mr Er went to Mr Yeo's aid, bringing him to the surface and seeking help from the lifeguards on duty. Lifeguards and others responded, however efforts to revive Mr Yeo failed and he was pronounced dead in the National University Hospital.

In her lawsuit, Madame Teong claimed that the lifeguards on duty were positioned in such a manner that it would have been difficult for them to have responded to Mr Yeo quickly when he was having difficulties.

It has also been alleged by Madame Teong that lifeguards at the pool were required to monitor the entrances and exits of the pool further distracting them from giving their full attention to Mr Yeo while he was swimming.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was peformed on Mr Yeo, but Teong has also questioned why the Oxy-Viva resuscitator machine, installed in the centre less than a fortnight before Mr Yeo drowned, was not used to revive her late husband.

A coroner's inquiry in 2008 recorded a misadventure verdict after being unable to attrribute what caused Mr Yeo to get into difficulty. A pathologist attributed drowning and heart disease as contributory factors to his death. The two lifeguards who attended Mr Yeo were NUS students who were part time workers at the pool.

Teong is alleging negligence and claiming $1 million in damages for herself and her two children. NUS are contesting the lawsuit and have named the pool operators, Hydro Aquatic Swimming School, as second defendant after tendering management of the pool to the School two months prior to the incident. The operators are in turn, attempting to include their insurers in the suit to indemnify them for any liabilities.

This case highlights the potential legal ramifications of managing an aquatic centre and issues around placement of lifeguards within a facility as well as lifeguard workload. Issues such as this will be discussed within the Advances in Lifesaving and Emergency Response and Medical streams at the upcoming conference.

If you are conducting research in this area or have a similar news article you would like to contribute please contact Justin Scarr on the details provided below.

Amy Peden, Royal Life Saving Society - Australia

The conference organisers welcome contributions to this news facility. Please email all contributions to jscarr@rlssa.org.au