Lifeguard fired for saving drowning victim

[Peppergirl]

Seems this guy is paid by a private company to patrol a specific area of beach. He left his post to aid a drowning beachgoer outside of his area, and was fired for his trouble.

Nice. This is the sort of shit that prevents some of us from being good samaritans. What, with the risk of being sued and this sort of fuckery, why risk it?

fired

[Greenday]

The company was fully in their right to fire him. They own a specific spot. Anything that happens off their property isn't their business. If something happens to one of their employees, they get held responsible so they don't want their employees risking their lives for stuff that's not their job.

[Andara Bledin]

Anyone who honestly believes that anyone else should let someone potentially die because it's "not their job" is a fucking sociopath.

^-.-^

[Peppergirl]

The company was fully in their right to fire him.

Somehow my mom's favorite phrase keeps popping into my head after reading this:

"Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."

[dendawg]

Hmm....funny that the company's Facebook page has conveniently disappeared.

And apparently, at least two other lifeguards there have quit in protest. Good on them.

Something tells me the lifeguard company's contract won't be renewed.

[Greenday]

Something tells me the lifeguard company's contract won't be renewed.

Why? Have they provided sub-par service to that specific beach? Do you think they'll actually have trouble filling those spots?

[dendawg]

Why? Have they provided sub-par service to that specific beach? Do you think they'll actually have trouble filling those spots?

Considering all the bad publicity arising from this incident, hell yea they'll have a hard time finding new people, IMHO. Are you gonna sit there and tell me that if you were a lifeguard and somebody was in trouble outside your "zone" you wouldn't help the person? If the answer is yes, then you, my friend, are one heartless son of a bitch.

[Gravekeeper]

In fairness that article seems to have cut out utterly everything relevant to the story except the part specifically intended to cause outrage. ( Surprise surprise ).

1) He didn't save anyone. Bystanders saved the guy by the time he got there.
2) He was fired on a technicality and the company was relunctant to do so.
3) The company has stated it will hire him back if they find they acted too hastily in firing him. They just need to review the incident per policy.

Its a sucky situation, but it was caused by policy and liability. If someone had drowned in his zone while he was 1600 feet away from it both he and the company would be in a world of shit far beyond this.

Both him and the company were damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

[fireheart17]

Why? Have they provided sub-par service to that specific beach? Do you think they'll actually have trouble filling those spots?

It's the isolation aspect. The company that hired <lifeguard company> wouldn't want to be associated with a company whose name has just been spread all over the news in a negative light.

[Peppergirl]

Ok, GK - I'll bite. Why not just suspend him (with or without pay) pending an investigation?

Zero tolerance policies and liabilities are becoming the bane of our existence, true - but they didn't have to fire him. I'm quite sure there are and were better ways of handling the situation.

[Nyoibo]

It's kind of like the epi-pen thing here, if a teacher or coach has an epi-pen for a specific child and another kid has need of one, the teacher/coach can't use it on the other child.

[Gravekeeper]

Ok, GK - I'll bite. Why not just suspend him (with or without pay) pending an investigation?

Zero tolerance policies and liabilities are becoming the bane of our existence, true - but they didn't have to fire him. I'm quite sure there are and were better ways of handling the situation.

Kind of answered your own question. He was fired because he left his post and created a safety and liability issue. He left his patrol area unattended to rescue a man swimming in an unprotected area ( an area specifically marked with signs saying "Swim At Your Own Risk" ). He was 1500 feet or so away from the border of the protected area. If anything had happened in his assigned area he would not be able to get bck in time. He didn't even get to the guy drowning in time from his patrol area.

They were relunctant to fire him but rules are rules ( Something he himself acknowledged ). It should also be noted he was fully aware he would be fired for what he did and was was warned by his supervisor if he did it the company wouldn't have any choice but to fire him.

Yes its an unfortunate situation all around, but no aspect of it was a surprise to anyone involved. The media loves its rage porn however, so they can't let facts get in the way. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

They were relunctant to fire him but rules are rules ( Something he himself acknowledged ).

Isolated from everything else, this is a bullshit reason to do anything. Ever.

Rules are only good if there's a solid reason behind them; obeying them just because they are rules just isn't good enough. One size never fits all.

Other than that, it was still handled badly regardless of whether the decision was the right thing or not. Negative image publicity like this takes so long to live down, it's easier to just fold the company and start a new one under a different name.

Oh, and it's also worth noting that while other swimmers pulled him from the water, he still needed attention; so saying that Lopez had nothing to do with the swimmer's survival is an assumption, and possibly mis-informed.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Rules are only good if there's a solid reason behind them; obeying them just because they are rules just isn't good enough. One size never fits all.

There is a solid reason its just nobody likes it. He created a safety and liability issue for his company. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Morally speaking his actions are commendable. Objectively speaking he left everyone he was suppose to be keeping safe unattended in order to save one person who had willfully put themselves in danger. In the process he left his employer wide open to liability lawsuits which could easily put them out of business if something had gone wrong.

Like I said its an unfortunate situation but its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Oh, and it's also worth noting that while other swimmers pulled him from the water, he still needed attention; so saying that Lopez had nothing to do with the swimmer's survival is misinformed.

The swimmer was attended to by an off duty nurse and bystanders had already pulled him out of the water. His presence didn't swing the situation one way or another. Yet every rage porn inducing media headline is "LIFEGUARD FIRED FOR SAVING MAN".

[HYHYBT]

Liability-wise... they probably had to. Somebody outside their area isn't the company's problem.

Morality-wise, trying to save someone you know really is in trouble right this moment is more important than being available just in case, even if it's likely to mean having to find another job afterwards.

Businesses, to continue their own existence, have to make liability avoidance their priority. People don't.

edit to add, because we were typing at the same horrible time: "The swimmer was attended to by an off duty nurse and bystanders had already pulled him out of the water. His presence didn't swing the situation one way or another." True, but he's exceedingly unlikely to have had any way of knowing either of those in time to act accordingly.