Florida lifeguard fired for helping drowning man

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Testify**

A lifeguard who left his section of a Florida beach to help save a man from drowning has been given the sack.

Tomas Lopez, 21, was patrolling part of Hallandale Beach north of Miami when he was told that a swimmer was in trouble in an unguarded area of the beach.

"I wasn't going to say no," the lifeguard said.

But his bosses said he had broken company rules and could have put other swimmers at risk. At least two colleagues have resigned in protest.

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," Susan Ellis of lifeguard provider Jeff Ellis and Associates told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

She added that the stretch of Hallandale Beach that Mr Lopez was supposed to be patrolling on Monday was being protected by other lifeguards who were on the phone to emergency operators at the time.

Mr Lopez, four months in the job, ran some distance to help the swimmer who had already been pulled out of the water by other beachgoers.

He and an off-duty nurse then helped the man until paramedics arrived to take him to hospital. The unidentified swimmer is said to be in intensive care.

Mr Lopez has no regrets about losing his $8.25-an-hour (£5.30; 6.60 euros) job.

"I think it's ridiculous, honestly, that a sign is what separates someone from being safe and not safe," Mr Lopez told CBS television.

A colleague, on finding out that he had been fired, said he radioed his manager to cover the beach for him and promptly quit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18715684

Eugh. Words fail me.

**WarOne**

Private enterprise.

You do not do what the boss wants you to do, you get fired.

Aside from public outcry, the story is open and shut.

Now begins the dilemma of how to address private enterprise jobs that deal with life and death situations and what a person employed by a private entity is allowed to do without get fired if it saves lives out of the jurisdiction of what his job asks him to do.

Kinda like if you hire privately owned police forces to do the policing, and an officer leaves his patrol route to deal with a life or death situation when he is explicitly told that is not for him to involve himself or else he gets disciplined, up to an including getting canned.

**Tibbsy**

Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

**WarOne**

Tibbsy wrote:
Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

Agreed, but we are dealing with private enterprise, which penalizes as they see fit. They justified his firing because he endangered other lives to try and save one outside his jurisdiction.

**SagesStone**

The sad part when you think about it is this.

"We have liability issues and can't go out of the protected area," Susan Ellis of lifeguard provider Jeff Ellis and Associates told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

If he goes to save someone and another drowned their family could have sued and possibly even shut down all the lifeguards there. I'm not saying it's right, what he did was, but you can see where their fear comes from.

**AduroT**

In our training class for site security officer the trainer told us that officially we are not allowed to leave our assigned post. Someone across the street needs First Aid and you're the only one around? Tuff, call 911. Unofficially? He doesn't really expect you to sit there and watch someone bleed to death. If you leave the site perimeter though anything that comes of it is on you, their liability is done.

**Testify**

WarOne wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

Agreed, but we are dealing with private enterprise, which penalizes as they see fit. They justified his firing because he endangered other lives to try and save one outside his jurisdiction.

So the motive for profit is more important than saving a human being's life?
In that case, why have private life guards at all?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AduroT wrote:In our training class for site security officer the trainer told us that officially we are not allowed to leave our assigned post. Someone across the street needs First Aid and you're the only one around? Tuff, call 911. Unofficially? He doesn't really expect you to sit there and watch someone bleed to death. If you leave the site perimeter though anything that comes of it is on you, their liability is done.

This. Company procedure!=what is actually done. 9 times out of 10 the company this dude worked for would have just ignored the fact that he breached policy.
This is the problem with companies that don't have to directly deal to the public - they don't care about PR. Normal people would shun a business that let a human being die because of procedure, governments reward them with big bucks contracts.

**Kilkrazy**

Imagine the headline if things had gone differently.

Lifeguard watches swimmer drown

4th July -- A man drowned on Doji Beach today because a nearby lifeguard refused to resue him.

"'He was 5 yards outside my patrol area'," said Gary Bloke, 24, "'So I figured it's someone else's problem.'"

"'My job is to ensure the company's public liability insurance doesn't take a hit.'"

"'What if someone had got into difficulties while my back was turned'"

**sarpedons-right-hand**

Liability issues!? Seriously?

Kilkrazy has it spot on..... Feth the compensation culture dude....

**KingCracker**

The guy did the right thing, feth the companies liability insurance.

**dogma**

Testify wrote:
So the motive for profit is more important than saving a human being's life?

Usually yes. We have ~7 billion of you.

Testify wrote:
In that case, why have private life guards at all?

The lesson here is always wear boots when swimming, then you can pull yourself up.

AduroT wrote:
This is the problem with companies that don't have to directly deal to the public - they don't care about PR. Normal people would shun a business that let a human being die because of procedure, governments reward them with big bucks contracts.

That's why we have camera phones, and starving liberal arts graduates working in journalism.

**d-usa**

Testify wrote:
WarOne wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

Agreed, but we are dealing with private enterprise, which penalizes as they see fit. They justified his firing because he endangered other lives to try and save one outside his jurisdiction.

So the motive for profit is more important than saving a human being's life?
In that case, why have private life guards at all?

You have private life guards to save lives in the area they are assigned to.

He can be penalized for not following the rules of his job, and he was.

I would not be surprised if he also gets rewarded by the municipality though.

**Asherian Command**

WarOne wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

Agreed, but we are dealing with private enterprise, which penalizes as they see fit. They justified his firing because he endangered other lives to try and save one outside his jurisdiction.

You know unless it says in the redcross.... You must help other people at all times or be penalized by court.
court or rescue and lose job? Later please.
Its against the law and the flordia beach manager should be fired and put onto court for trying to obstruct a Lifeguard's duty.

Last time i check the American Red cross as has more leeway than an upstart small business owner.

**timetowaste85**

The guy did the right thing. I think he should take it to court. Any person who watches someone die because they were 5 feet out of range doesn't deserve to look at himself in the mirror in the morning. This guy may not have a job (currently), but he's a damn fine human being.

**d-usa**

The red cross offers training and publishes guidelines. Unless you work directly for them, they have zero say on what you do.

**Ahtman**

It is easy to get mad at the company, and certainly they deserve a little ire, but it is the litigious culture that forces them to have to worry about such things in such an extreme way.

**dogma**

timetowaste85 wrote:Any person who watches someone die because they were 5 feet out of range doesn't deserve to look at himself in the mirror in the morning.

Why should someone care about you more than their financial well being?

**Asherian Command**

dogma wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:Any person who watches someone die because they were 5 feet out of range doesn't deserve to look at himself in the mirror in the morning.

Why should someone care about you more than their financial well being?

Dogma, it would be a lawsuit upon the business that is a beach. A place where people have fun and play.
Under the good samartian laws the lifeguard is protected, but the beach is not as they are not medically trained personnel.
You cannot support a business that lets other human beings die because they are 5 feet out of range.
PLus if the guard blew his whistle twice and that means that to evacuate the pool or beach the patrons will have to to evacuate the pool and the people that were in danger would be fine.

**Polonius**

Let's not forget that the guy in question was someplace he shouldn't have been. Odds are (barring a riptide or some nonesense), he took a calculated risk. Much like the lifeguard did.

Whoever is paying for lifeguards is doing so to protect swimmers that are in the area they are supposed to be in. Not to be do-gooders. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done what the guy did, but he's still endangering the people he's supposed to be watching by going after the other guy.

When I took lifeguarding classes, though the Red Cross, the first rule I was taught was "protect your job." It sounds cynical, but lifeguards were taught in the mid 90's that keeping your job was more important than saving lives. I can't imagine that's changed dramatically.

**dogma**

Asherian Command wrote:
Under the good samartian laws the lifeguard is protected, but the beach is not as they are not medically trained personnel.

The beach is public land, I think. The responsible party is the guard provider.

Asherian Command wrote:
You cannot support a business that lets other human beings die because they are 5 feet out of range.

I live in the US.

**Asherian Command**

dogma wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Under the good samartian laws the lifeguard is protected, but the beach is not as they are not medically trained personnel.

The beach is public land, I think. The responsible party is the guard provider.

Asherian Command wrote:
You cannot support a business that lets other human beings die because they are 5 feet out of range.

I live in the US.

The beach still has to follow federal laws. /discussion.

**dogma**

Well, yeah, he's probably free from prosecution but he can still be fired.

**Polonius**

Good Samaritan laws protect a person from civil liability for any damages occuring while they attempt to help somebody outside of the scope of their employment.

The common law has always assumed that a person in danger consents to rescue when it comes to criminal charges like assault or false imprisonment.

Very few laws prohibit a company from firing an employee in gross violation of their duty.

**Ouze**

And we creep a little closer to the ideal libertarian America, where corporations have all the rights of people but none of the morality or responsibility; and they'd rather see a man drown then potentially cost themselves money in a hypothetical lawsuit.

**Polonius**

Ouze wrote:And we creep a little closer to the ideal libertarian America, where corporations have all the rights of people but none of the morality or responsibility; and they'd rather see a man drown then potentially cost themselves money in a hypothetical lawsuit.

They do have responsibilty. To their shareholders.

And it's not just about money. Somebody hired lifeguards to protect people swimming at a beach. Obstensibly that's to protect the patrons of the beach.

If those lifeguards are out helping people who were where they weren't supposed to be, they aren't protecting the people they are supposed to protect.

**d-usa**

Moral duty frequently do not overlap with your legal duties and/or your duties to your employer and patrons.

**Tibbsy**

This thread makes me sad

**d-usa**

I was on a volunteer fire department for almost 5 years, and technically per regulations we could not do anything unless we were toned out by dispatch. Show up at our station with a hand cut of, need to call 911. Sit outside the station and see a house on fire, need to call 911. For medical emergencies we would tread people under good Samaritan and one of the guys called 911 from the station to make it "official". Same with fires, we would often see the smoke from a grass fire and start driving our brush truck towards the fire while our secretary called 911. Once the tones dropped we would fire up the lights and sirens.

It is a stupid culture, but it was made stupid for a reason. Get into a wreck while responding to an emergency, covered by department insurance and often law. Get into a wreck while freelancing to a fire, you are on your own.

**poda_t**

WarOne wrote:
Tibbsy wrote:
Testify wrote:
Eugh. Words fail me.

My thoughts exactly...

The guy should be rewarded, not penalised.

Agreed, but we are dealing with private enterprise, which penalizes as they see fit. They justified his firing because he endangered other lives to try and save one outside his jurisdiction.

and yet, if he did not intervene outside his jurisdiction, the enterprise would be under investigation for failing to do a civil duty, the fellow might be charged, and probably fired anyway.

Happy 4th of July!

**Platuan4th**

Polonius wrote:Good Samaritan laws protect a person from civil liability for any damages occuring while they attempt to help somebody outside of the scope of their employment.

Yes, and no.

EMTs and Paramedics are protected by the Good Samaritan law only off duty. If you attempt to help someone outside of the scope of your employment ON duty, say, an EMT doing something only a Paramedic is allowed to do like a tracheotomy, you're legally and civilly responsible and Good Samaritan laws mean squat. They mostly exist to protect lay people, not professionals(at least according to the paramedics who taught my EMT courses).