Court dismisses claim

Listen to this article:

The High Court in Lautoka has dismissed a negligence claim against the Fiji Football Association (FFA).

The case, brought by Muni Mahendar Reddy as administrator of his deceased son, Muni Shalit Reddy’s estate, sought damages for the 17-year-old’s drowning during a team outing in Samoa.

Muni Shalit Reddy, a member of Fiji’s Under-17 soccer team, drowned on January 27, 2015, in the Vailoa Palauili natural pool in Savaii, Samoa, after a sightseeing trip following the 2015 OFC Under-17 Championship.

Mr Reddy alleged FFA’s negligence, citing inadequate supervision, failure to inspect the swimming area, and lack of safety precautions.

FFA admitted responsibility for the team’s supervision but denied negligence, asserting reasonable care was taken.

Evidence from two FFA officials, Yogendra Dutt and Kamal Krishan Swamy, detailed safety measures that included pre-trip briefings, selecting a shallow pool area, and forming a supervisory perimeter.

They testified that Shalit left the shallow area, claiming he needed to urinate, then jumped into the deep end from a rock, despite instructions to stay in the designated zone.

In his July 21 ruling, Justice Mohamed Mackie found FFA owed a duty of care but ruled no breach occurred.

“For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the incident occurred with great rapidity.

“The claim of negligence on the part of the Defendant (FFA) has to fail necessarily.

“The plaintiff (Mr Reddy) failed to establish, on balance of probability, that the Defendant was negligent in taking care, supervising and controlling the deceased in a way which would have prevented the incident or would have reduced the seriousness, preventing the tragic end of the deceased’s life,” said Justice Mackie.

“I conclude that the plaintiff failed to discharge that burden of proof.

“This simply translates that the plaintiff has not proven that the death of the deceased was caused by any negligent act or omission on the part of the Defendant.”

“The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to claim damages from the Defendant.”