Marjan Petrovski v 1. ) Datuk Seri Utama IR Haji Idris bin Hj Haron 2. ) Datuk Wira Mohd Yusoff bin Hj Mahadi 3. ) Ahmad Roslee bin Hamzah 4. ) Datuk Hj Fadzil bin A. Bakar 5. ) Khairi Anuar bin Ahmad 6. ) Tn Hj Ramli bin Mohd Ali 7. ) Noor Azman bin Hj. Rahman 8. ) Razak bin Abu Hassan 9. ) Shamsuddin bin Hassan 10. ) A. Subramaniam 11. ) Tan Ching Yang 12. ) S Pathy 13. ) Nazri bin Abu Bakar 14. ) Mohd Saiful bin Mat Sapri 15. ) Bakri bin Neemat
Catchwords
"Sports and law of negligence - a professional football player was struck by lightning whilst attending training at an open field - there was effort to render CPR but there was no Automated External Defibrillator to assist in effective resuscitation - there was no doctor present at training session - player was transported to hospital by car - resuscitation achieved at the emergency ward - player passed away later due to Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy ('HIE') . Plaintiff is the deceased's father suing as dependent and personal representative and/or administrator of the estate - Plaintiff claims negligence against the Defendants for failing to abide by FIFA Emergency Medical Manual Guideline which recommends the use of CPR and AED in resuscitating players suffering from sudden cardiac arrest and injury caused by lightning - FIFA Guideline not adopted and implemented by FAM and local licensed football clubs and associations at the material time Plaintiff also claims breach of contract for failure to take out a Personal Accident Insurance as required under the terms of the Player's Contract and breach of undertaking to pay all salaries of the deceased for the remaining period of the Player's Contract - Plaintiff also claims for loss of financial support as parent - Plaintiff seeks reliefs including aggravated damages. Issues: (i) whether there a duty of care owed by the football club to the deceased; (ii) whether the FIFA Guideline was binding on the Defendants; (iii) was there was a breach of that duty of care; (iv) there was causation between the lightning injury and the player's death or whether it was an Act of God; (v) whether there was a breach of contract and undertaking; and (vi) whether Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. Findings: (i) there was a duty of care owed to the deceased to provide for a safe working environment and to provide for adequate emergency medical assistance - there was no attending doctor at training session and there was no AED - the duty of care was not dependent on the implementation of the FIFA Guideline by FAM and local football clubs/associations - there was no impediment for the Defendants to implement their own guideline to respond to medical emergencies - cardiac arrest is an injury that is reasonably foreseeable to occur amongst professional footballers - there were breaches of that duty of care - whilst the lightning did not cause immediate death it was the defendants' breach of duty of care that led to the HIE and eventually death - there was breach of contract to take out a Personal Accident Insurance in the deceased's name - There was no breach of undertaking - Held: (i) Plaintiff had proven on balance of probabilities that Defendant's owed a duty of care to the deceased and that the duty was breached - finding of liability made in favor of Plaintiff - Award for damages for breach of contract and partial claim for loss of financial support - claims for aggravated damages denied.
Practice Areas
"Sports and law of negligence Plaintiff is the deceased's father suing as dependent and personal representative and/or administrator of the estate Plaintiff also claims breach of contract for failure to take out a Personal Accident Insurance as required under the terms of the Player's Contract and breach of undertaking to pay all salaries of the deceased for the remaining period of the Player's Contract Issues: (i) whether there a duty of care owed by the football club to the deceased; (ii) whether the FIFA Guideline was binding on the Defendants; (iii) was there was a breach of that duty of care; (iv) there was causation between the lightning injury and the player's death or whether it was an Act of God; (v) whether there was a breach of contract and undertaking; and (vi) whether Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. Findings: (i) there was a duty of care owed to the deceased to provide for a safe working environment and to provide for adequate emergency medical assistance Held: (i) Plaintiff had proven on balance of probabilities that Defendant's owed a duty of care to the deceased and that the duty was breached
Judges (1)
Parties (16)
A. Subramaniam Defendant Ahmad Roslee bin Hamzah Defendant Bakri bin Neemat Defendant Datuk Hj Fadzil bin A. Bakar Defendant Datuk Seri Utama Ir Haji Idris bin Hj Haron Defendant Datuk Wira Mohd Yusoff bin Hj Mahadi Defendant Khairi Anuar bin Ahmad Defendant Marjan Petrovski Plaintiff Mohd Saiful bin Mat Sapri Defendant Nazri bin Abu Bakar Defendant Noor Azman bin Hj. Rahman Defendant Razak bin Abu Hassan Defendant S Pathy Defendant Shamsuddin bin Hassan Defendant Tan Ching Yang Defendant Tn Hj Ramli bin Mohd Ali Defendant
Case Significance
Marjan Petrovski v 1. ) Datuk Seri Utama IR Haji Idris bin Hj Haron 2. ) Datu... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated April 29, 2025 (citation: ma-22ncvc-2-01-2019). The case was decided by Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid.
What was the outcome of Marjan Petrovski v 1. ) Datuk Seri Utama IR Haji Idris bin Hj Haron 2. ) Datu...?
Marjan Petrovski v 1. ) Datuk Seri Utama IR Haji Idris bin Hj Haron 2. ) Datu... is a High Court decision dated April 29, 2025. The case was heard by Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid. See the full judgment for details.