Boy, 7, nearly drowns after getting trapped in condo jacuzzi, father sues management for negligence
K.C. Vijayan
The Straits Times
Oct 30, 2025
A condominium resident is suing its management corporation (MC) for alleged negligence over injuries suffered by his seven-year-old son, who nearly drowned in the jacuzzi at Seastrand Condominium in Pasir Ris.
While in the jacuzzi on Feb 22, 2025, the boy was allegedly pulled underwater by the suction force of the pressure pump system and became trapped.
His mother, who was with him, and two passers-by tried but failed to free him. He stayed submerged until the pump was turned off, and he could be pulled out.
In court documents filed, the boy's father, Mr Gymn Dou Hun, said the boy became unconscious and nearly drowned. He required resuscitation and intensive care, and was hospitalised for 17 days. It was not stated how long he was underwater.
The boy's injuries included cardiac arrest following his submersion, swelling in the brain because of excessive fluid build-up, and abrasions from the imprint of the jacuzzi grating that resulted in permanent scarring.
He also suffered chemical pneumonitis - inflammation of the lungs or breathing difficulty - when he breathed in and choked on certain chemicals.
The boy continues to suffer pain and long-term consequences, incurring expenses for ongoing medical treatments. The lawsuit was filed by lawyer Viviene Sandhu from Clifford Law.
In rejecting the negligence claims, the MC denied it had direct control over the jacuzzi and said the management and maintenance of the property was delegated to independent contractors.
In defence papers filed earlier in October, the MC's lawyer, Mr K. Anparasan from WhiteFern LLC, argued that safety and maintenance responsibilities were reasonably entrusted to qualified contractors and the MC disclaimed responsibility for the incident or any resulting harm.
The MC had appointed a managing agent to oversee and maintain the common property from Nov 1, 2024, to Oct 31, 2025. It had also engaged a company specialising in pool cleaning services to maintain the swimming pool and jacuzzi facilities in a long-term contract spanning Sept 1, 2018, to Aug 1, 2025.
The MC added that any duty of care owed to the plaintiff was either fulfilled or delegated appropriately, and that it should not be held liable for any alleged failures by these contractors.
In attributing blame to the MC and its agents, Mr Gymn said they had failed to install safety measures such as a safety vacuum release system, a safety device that releases vacuum pressure when a drain is blocked.
He said there should also have been curved anti-entrapment drain covers, which cannot be fully blocked, and better circulation design.
Mr Gymn also cited poor regulation of suction pressure, insufficient maintenance, and the lack of emergency safety features like a shut-off switch, and an automated external defibrillator.
The MC countered that any safety obligations - such as installing a vacuum release system, anti-entrapment drain covers, or providing emergency shut-off mechanisms - were governed by prevailing industry standards and not mandated by law.
It said the jacuzzi pool was equipped with two drains and an accessible emergency shut-off button. It also said recommendations by the National Water Safety Council were not binding, but a series of steps that owners or operators of aquatic facilities could take, rather than duties or obligations on the MC.
The MC said prominently displayed condo rules and regulations also stated that children under the age of 12 must be supervised by adults, and that swimmers should exercise caution, as no lifeguard is on duty.
Given that the claimant's family had lived in the development for six years, the MC said they were familiar, or should have been familiar, with these safety guidelines.
Regarding maintenance, the MC claimed that regular inspections were conducted, including one on Feb 22, shortly before the incident. These checks covered water quality, pump systems and emergency controls. It denied any breach of duty and maintained that the jacuzzi pool was reasonably safe for use.
The court will have to decide if the MC is in the clear for negligence, or totally liable, or whether blame should be shared by the independent contractors as well as the plaintiff's parties.
Mr Gymn is seeking general damages and costs from the MC to be assessed by the court, if he succeeds, as well as special damages for medical treatment and other costs such as transport, missed school events and loss of income. Nearly $80,000 has been incurred by the family so far.
In response to queries from The Straits Times, the management corporation said: "As the matter is still at an early stage and is currently before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment on the specifics of the case, especially the merits.
"We have no further comment at this time but would share our concern for what the seven-year-old child has gone through."
A case management hearing is due to be held in the State Courts on Nov 21, 2025.
