Lifeguard fired for saving drowning victim

[Gravekeeper]

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.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, yeah. Like I said, damned either way.

[fireheart17]

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.

I can kind of see why that would be the case...should the situation crop up where the kid who the epi-pen was allocated to actually needs it right then and there, then he's boned.

[Greenday]

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.

I'm not a lifeguard. I can't tell you what I'd do. Are you telling me that leaving hundreds of people who are relying on me to make sure they are okay to help some dumbass over a quarter mile away who is swimming in an area specifically stating that their is no life guard and to swim at your own risk?

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.

Give it a couple weeks and no one will remember the incident. No one will care and life will continue on as normal.

[Rageaholic]

How far out was the victim? He must not have been that far away if he could see him from his post. I can understand the concern about leaving his post, but considering the circumstances, firing him seems like a dick move.

[Peppergirl]

I can understand the concern about leaving his post, but considering the circumstances, firing him seems like a dick move.

Indeed. Just another in a long line of zero tolerance policies that have no basis in reality or circumstance.

[Andara Bledin]

Are you telling me that leaving hundreds of people who are relying on me to make sure they are okay...

Hundreds? You got a head count while you were there, then?

Also, it's worth noting that he radioed his boss that he was leaving his zone, so it was possible for them to get backup on scene; it's not like he just abandoned his post without notice.

The articles state the drowning victim was from Estonia. I will assume that this means he wasn't a local, and it's unknown whether he could actually read the signs in question.

Plus, he didn't spot the guy himself: he was alerted by other beach-goers. It's possible that had he not gone, there might have been trouble related to that, too. I can't say for certain, but I'm willing to bet that a mob angry over a lifeguard letting a man drown because it's "out of my jurisdiction" would be far more dangerous to the people in his zone than his short absence.

It's also worth noting that the company has lost 7 lifeguards, now. Lopez, two more that said they would absolutely do the same thing, and four others who quit outright out of protest over it.

Obviously, for those who go into a job with the intention of saving lives, being told that it's wrong to do the right thing doesn't sit well.

Here's another question for the rules over morals crowd: What happens if an area adjacent covered by another lifeguard has two incidents at the same time; is the lifeguard ok to go to another area covered by his contract? Or should he never leave his assigned zone for any reason lest some unfortunate swimmer choose that window to get into trouble? When does an actual event of someone's life being in jeopardy get to take precedence over the potential for another incident that may or may not occur?

And, last but not least, the company's contract is up later this year. Considering how much anger is being voiced by various officials, I have a strong suspicion that there won't be a renewal without some serious (and desperately required) changes to policy.

Article at the Globe and Mail
Article at WFLX
Article at New Jersey Newsroom
Thread on Reddit started by one of the guards who quit and contributed to by several others involved as well as a number of former Ellis employees and other emergency responders.

And here's a story from last year from my own coast - you're all saying that this is ok, then? That a man should be allowed to take an hour to succumb to hypothermia because the local police (on an island, mind you) didn't have their water certification renewed? Despite the fact that he wasn't even deep enough to be under water, nor was he doing anything to make himself difficult to rescue? Despite the fact that this was a desperate cry for help from someone who needed psychiatric care? (nobody kills themselves via hypothermia that really wants to be dead)

^-.-^

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, look, Mister Ellis himself has done a complete about face on the matter and is offering the guy that 96% of everybody who anwered the poll consider a hero his job back.

It's interesting to note that he also states that at no time was Lopez' station left uncovered, so the reason for his and others' firings were bureaucratic zero tolerance buffoonery and not based on real liability issues.

Either that, or Ellis is lying about it being covered so that they can offer Lopez his job back and try to save themselves some face in this publicity nightmare.

Updated article at Sun Sentinel

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Hundreds? You got a head count while you were there, then?

Hundreds accurately reflects counts at the beaches in my area on any given day. Any beach so big that they have to actually hire a separate company to cover life guards is clearly larger than the beaches here.

And here's a story from last year from my own coast - you're all saying that this is ok, then? That a man should be allowed to take an hour to succumb to hypothermia because the local police (on an island, mind you) didn't have their water certification renewed? Despite the fact that he wasn't even deep enough to be under water, nor was he doing anything to make himself difficult to rescue? Despite the fact that this was a desperate cry for help from someone who needed psychiatric care? (nobody kills themselves via hypothermia that really wants to be dead)

You can stop spouting random non-sense now. I can put words in your mouth too. Why do you believe that companies should be forced to cover injuries to their employees who are doing stuff they are not being paid for?

Don't make rude accusations based on no facts, nor on things I never said.

[Andara Bledin]

I notice that you raged at me for "putting words in your mouth" and making "rude accusations" but you made no effort at all to actually answer any of the questions I put forth.

I didn't make statements; I asked questions. If you're getting mad as opposed to setting the record straight, perhaps I hit too close to the truth?

^-.-^

[Greenday]

If you're getting mad as opposed to setting the record straight, perhaps I hit too close to the truth?

You couldn't have missed the truth any further than you did. I'm mad because you are suggesting bad things about me without any proof to even back it up. That lack of proof proves my stance which you clearly just don't read.

[ngc_7331]

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.

I'll make sure that I tell my EMT/truck driver roommate that next time he's driving cross country and sees a fatal (man driving the RV saw his entire family killed while they were following him in the family car) accident that he shouldn't stop to help, it's outside of his jurisdiction. Because, you know, it's none of his business and his boss at the fire station might get mad at him.

[Andara Bledin]

You can be as mad as you like, but until you give corrections (because it's obvious that your position isn't nearly as clear as you seem to think it is, or there wouldn't even be a discussion in the first place), I have no reason at all to re-evaluate what it is I got form your earlier statements.

Also, contrary to what you think, the later comments were only vaguely directed at you; they were more directed at Gk. The bit at the top was refuting your statement that he abandoned his post because he didn't, a fact supported by a statement by Ellis himself.

Why do you believe that companies should be forced to cover injuries to their employees who are doing stuff they are not being paid for?

Is this part of that 'putting words in my mouth' stuff you mentioned? Because I'm not sure how being outraged that people think it's ok for trained professionals to stand and watch a man die and using the excuse that they're "just following orders" equates to thinking the company should pay any expenses related to that event.

In that particular case, I quite strongly believe that were the officials not standing right there, a civilian would have taken the initiative and done something; but with a uniformed response on hand, it is likely that it was believed that they would act at some point as opposed to just hanging around with their thumbs up their asses while someone who obviously needed help didn't receive it.

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".

I forgot to address this earlier: While he was pulled from the water by bystanders, and there was a nurse on hand, the likelihood that she knew the correct procedure for on site drowning protocols is very low; generally, only people who actively work water rescue would have that training.

Lopez was the one that got the victim in the recovery position, and she took her cues from him because she knew that he had training that she lacked. So, it is very likely that Lopez actually make a significant difference to the man's chances for survival and recovery.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I'll make sure that I tell my EMT/truck driver roommate that next time he's driving cross country and sees a fatal (man driving the RV saw his entire family killed while they were following him in the family car) accident that he shouldn't stop to help, it's outside of his jurisdiction. Because, you know, it's none of his business and his boss at the fire station might get mad at him.

Go for it. I'd personally never tell someone that but that's your right I guess.

[Peppergirl]

Go for it. I'd personally never tell someone that but that's your right I guess.

To be fair, you sorta did. You said the lifeguard shouldn't have intervened because it wasn't his job. Wouldn't this situation be very similar? After all, it isn't the business of the truck driver to stop and aid the dying family and it would keep him from his duties that he's being paid for.

[ngc_7331]

Go for it. I'd personally never tell someone that but that's your right I guess.

That is what you said, right? So should my roommate have gotten fired from his job because 'it wasn't his business'? Or because he was holding up delivering his load because he stopped?