The court dismissed the accusations of swimming supervisors in the event of a drowning in the swimming pool
Trials|The client drowned in the pool in the North Ostrobothnian indoor swimming pool in June 2022.
The abstract is made by artificial intelligence and checked by man.
The Oulu District Court dismissed the charges of two swimming supervisors in the event of death in the swimming pool.
The man drowned in the pool in the North Ostrobothnian swimming pool in June 2022 as a result of an illness.
The court did not find negligence in the activities of the swimmers and found it been an accident.
Oulu The District Court dismissed the charges of two swimmers for the death of the man in the event of a man drowned in the pool in the North Ostrobothnian indoor swimming pool in June 2022.
According to the forensic physicist, the man died accidentally and the drowning was led by a illness when his lungs went into water.
The man swam alone in the pool just before closing time. The pools were monitored by two swimmers mainly through the displays, as they got a better overview.
In the event of the situation, one supervisor was on a break, the other was on the screens and the prosecutor demanded a harder sentence, at least 60 days of conditional imprisonment.
In trial Indeed, a video recording was carefully investigated, of which the situation, which lasted almost fifteen minutes. First the man came off the edge, then he was sometimes on his stomach, his side and his back, that is, he moved for several minutes.
However, according to the forensic physicist, these movements were likely to be a movement under unconsciousness, death struggle.
According to the prosecutor, the switched swimmers neglected to supervise the man who was swimming and thus caused his death with their negligence.
The court did not find negligence in the activities of swimmers.
Displays The supervisor on the side had only been in the position for a couple of months. The court held that the supervisor could not be required to have had to detect the man’s need and start resuscitation.
The supervisor himself said that he did not consider the observations he made of the man as having to go to the man.
The evidence did not show that the man had died precisely as a result of the neglect of the supervisor. It was an accident.
Another supervisor returned from the break and noticed the man in the pool on his stomach. When the man did not react to the contact, the supervisor went to the pool and soon began to revive him.
The court outlined that a swimming supervisor is not a health care professional. It may not be possible for a swimming supervisor to be able to deduce the illness of the swimmer on the basis of a swimmer’s shop or being stationary, it said.
