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

[waggy]

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.

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.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

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.

 

[SSSnail]

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.

 

[CVSiN]

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.

This x infinity.

 

[RPD]

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.

 

[alkemyst]

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 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.

 

[ichy]

He broke the rules, he should have stood at the line in the sand and watch the guy drown.

He is a liability and should never get another job ever again.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

 

[ichy]

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.

Drown all the fucking lawyers. We live in a sick, sick society.

 

[vi edit]

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.

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.

 

[TallBill]

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'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.

 

[Train]

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.

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.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

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.

 

[Krazy4Real]

Good for him. He'll get another job in no time.

 

[waggy]

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.

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.

 

[dr150]

Internet shitstorm> Business Boycott w/ wrongful termination lawsuit> Guy gets rehired w/ after-trial $500k in his pocket

FTFY

 

[JamesV]

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).

 

[TallBill]

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 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.

 

[highland145]

What about the guy he saved? Hopefully he's rich and will give the kid a job.

 

[Veliko]

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.

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.

 

[waggy]

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.

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.

 

[alkemyst]

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.

 

[alkemyst]

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.

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?

 

[Veliko]

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.

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.

 

[waggy]

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?

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.

 

[Hugo Drax]

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.

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.