BRIEF FACTS:

• The late Stefan Petrovski (“Stefan”) was an 18 years old Australian professional football player who played for Melaka United Soccer Association (“MUSA”) under a Player’s Contract with MUSA dated 1.2.2016.
  
  
• On 5.4.2016, Stefan and his team attended a training session at an open field namely Kerubong 10 Field Training Facilities near the Hang Jebat Stadium, Melaka.
  
  
• At about 4.30 p.m., the weather began to change and it started to rain. However, the training was only called off around 5.00 p.m. when the rain became heavier. As Stefan was walking off the field, he was struck by lightning, fell unconscious, and suffered a cardiac arrest.
  
  
• The team’s physiotherapist noticed that Stefan was unconscious and immediately performed Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (“CPR”) for two minutes. However, Stefan did not regain consciousness. Automated External Defibrillator (“AED”) was also not available at the scene.
  
  
• Stefan was taken to Melaka General Hospital in a private car, as no ambulance was called. CPR was administered by the physiotherapist during the journey.
  
  
• There was no Automated External Defibrillator [AED] equipment at the training session. The AED is designed to treat people experiencing sudden cardiac arrest.
  
  
• Return of Spontaneous Circulation (“ROSC”) of the heart was achieved after Stefan was admitted at Melaka General Hospital. However, Stefan passed away on 1.5.2016 after being transferred to Putra Specialist Hospital. The cause of death was severe brain injury due to lack of oxygenated blood flow to the brain.
  
  
• Aggrieved by his son’s death, Marjan Petrovski (“Marjan”) filed a claim against the 1st to 15th Defendants, who were office bearers and/or committee members of MUSA, for negligence and breach of contract, among other grounds.

DECISION BY THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC held that MUSA as a football association who employed professional athletes owes a duty of care towards Stefan who is an employee a safe working environment and adequate medical measures in event of emergencies.
  
  
• The HC observed that professional athletes in physical sports, both on and off the field, undergo intense mental and physical exertion. It is now a recognized medical fact that athletes, including professional footballers, face a risk of cardiac arrest during or shortly after play.
  
  
• The HC held that MUSA, as a football club and employer of professional athletes, could not regard cardiac arrest as too remote or unforeseeable and had a duty to ensure adequate emergency measures were in place to provide effective resuscitation until hospital care was available.
  
  
• In arriving to its decision, the HC had taken a judicial notice of a study conducted that was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 2020 whereby that there had been 617 cases of cardiac arrests whilst playing football or shortly afterwards in the period of 2014 to 2018.
  
  
• While the cardiac arrest itself may not be foreseeable, the HC held that a club or association still owes a duty of care to provide reasonable and adequate medical assistance during emergencies, such as cardiac arrest, that occur under its supervision. The duty is not to prevent the cardiac arrest, but to ensure the player receives immediate and sufficient medical aid until proper treatment is available at a medical facility.
  
  
• The HC rejected the Defendants’ argument that appointing a panel doctor satisfied Regulation 9.2 of the FAM Club Licensing Regulations 2017 (“the Regulations”) and that the regulation did not require the doctor’s presence at training. The Court disagreed, holding that the regulation clearly requires the appointment of at least one doctor responsible for providing medical support during matches and training, which necessarily implies the doctor must be physically present.
  
  
• The HC also clarified that a physiotherapist does not meet the qualification of a medical doctor under the Regulations. Therefore, MUSA’s failure to have a qualified doctor present at training amounted to non-compliance.
  
  
• The HC also rejected the Defendants’ claim that the physiotherapist provided reasonable medical assistance or that Stefan’s death was an Act of God. It found that the physiotherapist, who lacked training in lightning strike emergencies and access to an AED, rendered inadequate CPR both on the field and during transport. The decision to stop CPR after two minutes and use a private vehicle instead of an ambulance further reduced Stefan’s chances of survival.
  
  
• The HC held that MUSA, through the 1st to 15th Defendants, breached its duty of care by failing to ensure the presence of a medical doctor, an AED, and failure to respond adequately to the emergencies. These failures materially contributed to Stefan’s death, and the Defendants failed to disprove the breaches on the balance of probabilities.