• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Lifeguard Fired for Insurance Purposes

DeletedUser3

I'm sure many of you have already read the articles pertaining to a lifeguard that saved someone from drowning, and was subsequently (almost immediately) fired for having left his designated area to perform this lifesaving effort. The reactions by many people is to become angry at contracted company that fired him, although the contracted company was following legal counsel, due to insurance issues. In other words, the contracted company's insurance policy did not cover actions of a lifeguard for performing life-saving duties outside his workplace, while on the clock.

So, should the lifeguard have been fired, should the company lose their government' contract, or should the insurance company be put to rights for imposing heartless liabilities?
 

DeletedUser

Initially, my reaction was the same as that of the "many people." But that changed once I heard about the insurance issues.

My thought is that the company fired the lifeguard as an example of sorts to prevent other lifeguards from such incidents in the future, and to get rid of the guy who could have gotten them into trouble. The reason why people are mad, I think, is because the company didn't need to fire the guy since no legal issues took place. He was doing the right thing, and although he could have caused a lot of legal troubles, there were none, and so to fire the guy is a misplaced action. If in fact the event caused the company some problems, then I can see the firing be somewhat justified.

In turn, the company shouldn't lose their contract, since that would be just as much of an overreaction or mistake as the company firing the lifeguard. Instead of all of this, the company should be looking for a solution to such issues so that in the future such an incident does not happen again.
 

DeletedUser

Lol well I don't know too much about the whole insurance issue. I assume you know a lot more, so what's your take?
 

DeletedUser22

There are so many assumptions you make in your head while you think this would be a correct decision. Without knowing the details it will be guessing if firing him was the best choice. But I think it was a bad choice judging the fact that the company has offered to hire him again and admitted that he was fired to quickly (source)
 

DeletedUser34

well seeing as I was just there :p
I agree that the company should have fired him...BUT, not because he broke any rules. Unfortunately in todays sue happy mentality, had something gone terribly wrong while he was rescuing a person out of his jurisdiction, the company would have been liable. It is a sad state of affairs to be sure. But, when the owner of the company got wind of it he was offered his job back, and it was declined. The truth is, no matter how distasteful it is on either side, it is the way it is.

I can tell you, the company isn't going to renew their bid for that beach and continue to focus on enclosed pools and water parks.
 

DeletedUser

In my opinion much like an insured car driver can not fail to stop render aid...neither should a lifeguard or any other insured person capable of rendering aid to a person in need
 

DeletedUser3

Umm, what Victorus? Are you saying that when someone gets insured, they should no longer render aid outside of their proscribed jurisdiction or job description?
 

DeletedUser34

Victorus said:
In my opinion much like an insured car driver can not fail to stop render aid...neither should a lifeguard or any other insured person capable of rendering aid to a person in need
Click to expand...

Whatever....I pass car accidents all the time without stopping. Did that once and saw a dude faceplanted in the steering wheel and decided risking puking was not my cup of tea.

I'd also like to point out the difference in an individual being able to enact the "good Samaritan laws" and a corporation trying to invoke the same...A corporation can't, and there in is why the guy should have been fired. A company has to abide in specified boundaries or else all hell breaks loose. Say that guy had died or broke his arm or any other such distasteful even. What is to protect the company from sue happy family members who have to find someone/something to blame? The Lifeguard is safe, but the company is not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Meh, only in America can you walk into a hospital and not be treated since you "don't have insurance", or not be saved by a lifeguard because he would "be uninsured on that section of the beach". It's a horrific, backwards and third-world mindset that ought to be shunned by the people and legislated against by the government.
 

DeletedUser22

Diggo11 said:
Meh, only in America can you walk into a hospital and not be treated since you "don't have insurance", or not be saved by a lifeguard because he would "be uninsured on that section of the beach". It's a horrific, backwards and third-world mindset that ought to be shunned by the people and legislated against by the government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a completely different mindset then i am used to.. A colleague of me immigrated to Canada.. He was shocked by the amount he needed to pay for car insurance.. When he asked why it needed to be that hight the company answered that it was because all their customers tended to sue and get sued a lot..
 

DeletedUser34

Diggo11 said:
Meh, only in America can you walk into a hospital and not be treated since you "don't have insurance", or not be saved by a lifeguard because he would "be uninsured on that section of the beach". It's a horrific, backwards and third-world mindset that ought to be shunned by the people and legislated against by the government.
Click to expand...

Actually it is illegal not to treat a person who doesn't have insurance. Albeit, your care might suck, depending on the region and/or hospital, but if you are ever turned away, and are worse because of the care you get, you can sue.
 

DeletedUser

Dominotx711 said:
Actually it is illegal not to treat a person who doesn't have insurance. Albeit, your care might suck, depending on the region and/or hospital, but if you are ever turned away, and are worse because of the care you get, you can sue.
Click to expand...
They are required to stabilise emergency patients only, not provide the necessary medication, continued outpatient care or advanced treatment, and only if the hospital in question is part or whole funded by government. Also chances are if I can't afford health insurance then paying a lawyer's fees would be out of the question. Care would suck indeed :p

Nevertheless, it only reaffirms my original argument. This scenario should be no different to an idealistic, government funded hospital: the onus should be on the lifeguard to resuscitate the man and call an ambulance, not the complete opposite we've witnessed.
 

DeletedUser

So to get somewhat back on topic, did you hear about the boy who died after a sand tunnel collapsed on him? The lifeguard tower was apparently 15 feet away. My question is where were the adults to error on caution to suggest that the boy should not have been under a massive sand pile that could collapse?? Or the lifeguards to state "Hey that doesn't look safe to be digging that big tunnel."

Link to story
 

DeletedUser34

Good Feather said:
So to get somewhat back on topic, did you hear about the boy who died after a sand tunnel collapsed on him? The lifeguard tower was apparently 15 feet away. My question is where were the adults to error on caution to suggest that the boy should not have been under a massive sand pile that could collapse?? Or the lifeguards to state "Hey that doesn't look safe to be digging that big tunnel."

Link to story
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is sadly or just a it is what it is thing, but lifeguards generally watch the water. I had asked my nephew about this as he is a lifeguard at Volusia County, and because of the hazards of rip tides, and shark bites, thrown in to the less often mix of jellyfish and board collisions, the water takes up most of their attention.

I do think in this case, not so much with the case the OP originally cited, that the parents do hold the majority of the blame in this. But as with everything else, everyone wants to blame others for their lack of intelligence....
 

DeletedUser

Dominotx711 said:
I don't know if this is sadly or just a it is what it is thing, but lifeguards generally watch the water. I had asked my nephew about this as he is a lifeguard at Volusia County, and because of the hazards of rip tides, and shark bites, thrown in to the less often mix of jellyfish and board collisions, the water takes up most of their attention.

I do think in this case, not so much with the case the OP originally cited, that the parents do hold the majority of the blame in this. But as with everything else, everyone wants to blame others for their lack of intelligence....
Click to expand...
The boy was twelve, not eighteen months; the tunnel must have been pretty friggin big and taken alot of time to dig in order to cause such damage. Slightly hard to miss? Surely someone should have noticed and thought, oh hey, this is dangerous... both the lame parents and experienced lifeguards.
 

DeletedUser34

that depends on which direction the "tunnel" was facing. If he had just did a mound of dirt, well, no, that isn't all that odd. We build people mounds all the time. We also build MOUNDS of dirt to begin sand sculptures...or we sucky people call sand castles :p

As a person on the beach often growing up, your logic on the lifeguards would be false. The parents however, again, it is their child and their responsibility to make sure he isn't unsafe. I have to say however, that something like this is common, sadly....because most people don't realize the dangers of sand tunnels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top