• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Life Guard, 21, fired after saving a drowning man.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
EagleKeeper said:
the purpose of having a lifeguard in the area is to help those in trouble.

the company had a contract.

the company was unable to fulfill the contract due to negligence.

Hence they are liable for any legal issues that arise due to non-fulfillment.
Click to expand...

I agree.


But the poor lifeguard was in a no win situation. IF he stood there and obeyed the rules and watched a man die because he was outside of his area there would still be a shitstorm. The company would fire the guy for not doing his duty's and saving the man.

i understand why they fired him. i don't agree with it though.
 
He should have broke out the popcorn & lawn chair. He might still have a job.

If I were drowning, I personally would value his measly job over my worthless life, he doesn't need to save me.
 
Last edited:
Those say that he should not help the drowning victim because of ”liabilities”, go die in a fire. There's such thing as human compassion, may be you'll need it one of these days.

May be we should go back and be humans instead of litigious a-holes.
 
SSSnail said:
Those say that he should not help the drowning victim because of ”liabilities”, go die in a fire. There's such thing as human compassion, may be you'll need it one of these days.

May be we should go back and be humans instead of litigious a-holes.
Click to expand...

This x infinity.
 
The liabilities should only come into play if the person was drowning outside his "area" at the same time someone else was drowning in his area. He goes to save the person in his area and the one outside dies then that family sues. THEN you can point to the fine print, otherwise it's just stupid.
 
waggy said:
I agree.


But the poor lifeguard was in a no win situation. IF he stood there and obeyed the rules and watched a man die because he was outside of his area there would still be a shitstorm. The company would fire the guy for not doing his duty's and saving the man.

i understand why they fired him. i don't agree with it though.
Click to expand...

He did have backup lifeguards covering his area.

The main issue is the liability for this shifts to the private company doing the rescue. If they let him drown, the city would be responsable, not the life guard company.
 
SSSnail said:
Those say that he should not help the drowning victim because of ”liabilities”, go die in a fire. There's such thing as human compassion, may be you'll need it one of these days.

May be we should go back and be humans instead of litigious a-holes.
Click to expand...

Drown all the fucking lawyers. We live in a sick, sick society.
 
SSSnail said:
Those say that he should not help the drowning victim because of ”liabilities”, go die in a fire. There's such thing as human compassion, may be you'll need it one of these days.

May be we should go back and be humans instead of litigious a-holes.
Click to expand...

I never said he shouldn't. I said I understand the issue. There's a difference. The company is a massive bag of dicks for firing the guy and will receive the appropriate amount of backlash for their actions.

But I understand the reason for it and the companies liability had some kid drowned on his beach while he was abscent rescuing someone else a 1/4 mile away.

Of course no one did drown while he was gone so it's easy to say he made the right choice.
 
waggy said:
I agree.


But the poor lifeguard was in a no win situation. IF he stood there and obeyed the rules and watched a man die because he was outside of his area there would still be a shitstorm. The company would fire the guy for not doing his duty's and saving the man.

i understand why they fired him. i don't agree with it though.
Click to expand...

He's out of a job. That's a much smaller loss than knowing that you let someone die.

Honestly, who gives a fuck about losing a job, it isn't the end of the world. Knowing that you have the skills to save someone and you didn't... yeah, good luck living with that.
 
TallBill said:
He's out of a job. That's a much smaller loss than knowing that you let someone die.

Honestly, who gives a fuck about losing a job, it isn't the end of the world. Knowing that you have the skills to save someone and you didn't... yeah, good luck living with that.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Srsly people bitch about losing jobs like it's getting a penis amputated or something.

He's a lifeguard who got fired for saving someone, I think he'll be ok. Something tells me there's more than one place in Orlando that a lifeguard can find work.
 
RPD said:
The liabilities should only come into play if the person was drowning outside his "area" at the same time someone else was drowning in his area. He goes to save the person in his area and the one outside dies then that family sues. THEN you can point to the fine print, otherwise it's just stupid.
Click to expand...


It is not that he had to make a choice; it is the fact that he was not there as required.

the contract apparently calls for x lifeguards to be on duty. Had the city asked for more; more would have been provided.
 
TallBill said:
He's out of a job. That's a much smaller loss than knowing that you let someone die.

Honestly, who gives a fuck about losing a job, it isn't the end of the world. Knowing that you have the skills to save someone and you didn't... yeah, good luck living with that.
Click to expand...

I would have done the same. The job is not worth someone's life.

BUT i understand why the company did what it did. I do not agree with them at all but i do understand it. It's sad that we as a society have fallen to that though.
 
I highly doubt it had anything to do with the fact he wasn't at his 'post' for a short period of time. There must have been other lifeguards on duty at the time, or would they fire this guy for going to the bathroom during a long shift?

What is more likely, is that someone in the past probably sued some lifeguard company for something frivolous, and succeeded due to a high powered attorney overblowing the situation. Like a female drowning victim seeing money from claiming the lifeguard fondled her - don't think being saved makes people better human beings.

Now, the companies probably have insurance to protect themselves against lawsuits like that, but that insurance would only apply to where that company's employees worked.

If the guy he saved (now or statute of limitations years from now) called foul on something the lifeguard did, the company could fold under huge court settlements. By firing the lifeguard, the company saves it's own ass from drowning.

Just the world we live in today. Right and wrong means nothing, just how well you can twist the law to your advantage. Hope something good happens for the lifeguard(s).
 
waggy said:
I would have done the same. The job is not worth someone's life.

BUT i understand why the company did what it did. I do not agree with them at all but i do understand it. It's sad that we as a society have fallen to that though.
Click to expand...

I understand it as well, which is why this shouldn't have been a news article. But people are fucking morons and don't understand either side of the coin so here we are debating something that is very cut and dry.
 
waggy said:
I would have done the same. The job is not worth someone's life.

BUT i understand why the company did what it did. I do not agree with them at all but i do understand it. It's sad that we as a society have fallen to that though.
Click to expand...

Really? Honestly?

You are claiming to understand why a lifeguard was fired, for saving someone's life?

That only makes sense if you are a sociopath.
 
Veliko said:
Really? Honestly?

You are claiming to understand why a lifeguard was fired, for saving someone's life?

That only makes sense if you are a sociopath.
Click to expand...

you are a idiot.

Yes i understand why. the company is liable for what happens. this guy was hired to protect section X. he left his section unguarded. that is against the rules. IF anything happened to his section the company would/could get sued.

I bet in the rulebook/handbook he got it says something like "NEVER leave your section unless you have a replacement (such as breaks, and leaving for the day) if you do it is grounds for immediate termination" and they may even have a "zero policy" on it.


in today's society people will sue for anything. The company is protecting itself.

Saying that i think the company is wrong in firing him. He should be held up as a hero in saving the life of someone.
 
Sadly, had this life guard let the person die; he'd have still been fired.

Again this is about that private company not wanting liability.
 
waggy said:
you are a idiot.

Yes i understand why. the company is liable for what happens. this guy was hired to protect section X. he left his section unguarded. that is against the rules. IF anything happened to his section the company would/could get sued.

I bet in the rulebook/handbook he got it says something like "NEVER leave your section unless you have a replacement (such as breaks, and leaving for the day) if you do it is grounds for immediate termination" and they may even have a "zero policy" on it.


in today's society people will sue for anything. The company is protecting itself.

Saying that i think the company is wrong in firing him. He should be held up as a hero in saving the life of someone.
Click to expand...

No bro, it's not about if anything happened in "HIS" section....he had coverage from other life guards.

It's about him making the company liable for patrolling outside his area.

Following your posts shows you end up on both sides of these kinds of arguments...do you have a stand or do you just pick the popular argument of the day?
 
waggy said:
you are a idiot.

Yes i understand why. the company is liable for what happens. this guy was hired to protect section X. he left his section unguarded. that is against the rules. IF anything happened to his section the company would/could get sued.

I bet in the rulebook/handbook he got it says something like "NEVER leave your section unless you have a replacement (such as breaks, and leaving for the day) if you do it is grounds for immediate termination" and they may even have a "zero policy" on it.


in today's society people will sue for anything. The company is protecting itself.

Saying that i think the company is wrong in firing him. He should be held up as a hero in saving the life of someone.
Click to expand...

No, the company is not protecting itself at all. It is making a mockery of itself.

You are being as absurd as the company, there is simply no excuse at all for the firing of this lifeguard.
 
alkemyst said:
No bro, it's not about if anything happened in "HIS" section....he had coverage from other life guards.

It's about him making the company liable for patrolling outside his area.

Following your posts shows you end up on both sides of these kinds of arguments...do you have a stand or do you just pick the popular argument of the day?
Click to expand...

eh? they may have been "covering" but they were not his replacement. there is a difference. well at least to management and lawyers.

both sides? wtf. how is it hard to understand.

I understand why the company fired him. I feel they are wrong. But i also know why the guy did it. i would say 90% would have done the same damn thing. the job is not worth watching a man drown.
 
alkemyst said:
Sadly, had this life guard let the person die; he'd have still been fired.

Again this is about that private company not wanting liability.
Click to expand...


Why, he was paid to watch Section X which says Lifeguard in service.

Section Y says no lifeguard, swim at own risk.

If the policy where he works stipulates, do not leave section X, Zero tolerance policy, instant termination. Then he would not be fired if person drowns in Section Y if he stayed in section X which is what the contract stipulates.

The contract probably stipulates 1 Lifeguard per X meters,if he left his section then during that period of time where people have an expectation of a lifeguard on duty per X sections of beach and someone drowns because it took too long for the other lifeguard to reach the victim in the ("Protected zone, with expectation of lifeguard per X meters") then it is a HUGE lawsuit in the millions.



It is pretty cut and dry. Americans love to sue, this is what you get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top