BBC News - Florida lifeguard fired for helping drowning man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18715684)

These dam people (????) are getting every where. Not the guy that was fired.

As soon as I read that the lifeguard had left his allotted area, I thought - 'Surely not - risk management/liability issue etc...'

Sure enough. Damn lawyers and accountants. :*

"Damn lawyers " - Perhaps a few more cyclists running red lights on crossings would help.

Maybe the drownee could sue the beach authority for wrongfully saving his life. Then he could split the proceeds with the lifeguard.

If you care to read the entire story, you will find that the lifeguard abandoned his allocated sector of the patrolled beach to go and assist with an incident on a stretch of beach that was not patrolled. When he got to that victim, a nurse was already in attendance, so there was no question of anyone being in danger of drowning. If you want to swim or whatever outside the flagged area, you know what you're letting yourself into.

Secondly, what is the point of having patrolled sections of the beach, if the allocated lifeguard abandons his/her post? What if there had been a real accident in the patrolled sector?


Lastly, his superior had instructed him not to abandon his post. He took a conscious decision to go and see to a Darwin award candidate, who had felt OK about ignoring the flags in the first place. Dereliction of duty in my book.

If you care to read the entire story, you will find that...

You know this is Jet BLAST, right? You start letting facts get in the way of prejudice and stereotypes where does it all end? Just ask yourself that.

That's rather what I thought as well, an example of human dereliction rather than what seems to happen in the UK which might be termed derelict humans?
Simon Burgess drowned after firemen refused to wade in 3ft deep lake due to health and safety rules | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104358/Simon-Burgess-drowned-firemen-refused-wade-3ft-deep-lake-health-safety-rules.html)

Victor Inox

I don't know which story you are reading, but if you 'care to read' the link, nowhere does it say that he left his area "after being instructed not to by his superior" (by writing that you are inferring he disobeyed a direct order given to him verbally at that time). He did however break company rules... which although amounting to the same thing, is different. Semantics? Maybe, but you're the one telling people to "take care to read the story".

Secondly, what is the point of having patrolled sections of the beach, if the allocated lifeguard abandons his/her post? What if there had been a real accident in the patrolled sector?From that link that I read carefully it states 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.Therefore the beach was not unattended.

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 careWhere does it state in this article that a nurse was already in attendance (as you state?). The article infers that other beach users pulled the man to safety, then the guard and a nurse helped him.

Dereliction of duty? The gentleman, as a lifeguard, is trained to care for potential drowning victims until Paramedics etc arrive. He would not have known there was a nurse in the vicinity until he got there and they identified themself. I can imagine that had the headline been "Lifeguard looks on as man dies" followed by a story detailing how the lifeguard watched from his post as a man was pulled from the surf, but did not render aid because it was outside the marked area, you would have been ranting on about the guy being a jobsworth. :ugh:

You know this is Jet BLAST, right? You start letting facts get in the way of prejudice and stereotypes where does it all end? Just ask yourself that.

Exactly. I read only the first few words before banging away grumpily... :*

You know this is Jet BLAST, right?

well obviously. if it was R&N there would have been at least 4 TAF and METAR posts by now and at least one Boeing Vs. Airbus argument and probably 2 FAA Vs. EASA.


And I thought this could only happen in the UK


and no. if it was the UK, he would have been fired for not completing a health and safety assessment and undergoing a CRB check before saving the drowning man, all of course observed 15 fire engines 30 ambulances two rescue heli's and no one able to cross the sand without B/A due to possible respiratory tract risk due to the dust levels of sand.

all of course observed 15 fire engines 30 ambulances two rescue heli's

They would not have been available stuckgear, as they'd have been called to extinguish an electronic cigerette in a motor bus on the M6 tollroad......

:cool: - well, stuckgear... :E (although it sounds quite convincing!).
Lastly, his superior had instructed him not to abandon his post. He took a conscious decision to go and see to a Darwin award candidate, who had felt OK about ignoring the flags in the first place. Dereliction of duty in my book.
so, you'd expect a lifeguard watch someone drown 1500 ft from his area and do nothing? You seriously would?
And then? Like anotherthing said - headlines: ...

And how probable is it anyway that two persons could be drowning more or less side-by-side, if we assume he had to be ready in case someone else on his territory would drown at precisely that moment?

Victor Inox,

Errr, there was a REAL accident in the unpatrolled sector, a danger to human life. I'm sure the lifeguard has a conscience, which is more than seems to be apparent among certain people on here...

He seems unaffected by the loss of his job, and rightly so. The chap was obviously unwilling to follow an 'order' which could have led to the death of somebody, Darwin candidate or not.

Either way, of course they had to fire him, for more than one reason. That decision (made by the company) doesn't anger me, because they have to cover their ar$es, and for all we know, the person who performed the firing might have resented doing it and told the lifeguard that.

The problems, if there are any, lie further up the foodchain.

probes wrote:

And how probable is it anyway that two persons could be drowning more or less side-by-side, if we assume he had to be ready in case someone else on his territory would drown at precisely that moment?

probes. His territory/area was also occupied by other life guards i.e., he was not alone in his area. no lifeguard on major beaches in the U.S. is ever alone and are, at a minimum, in pairs.

His territory/area was also occupied by other life guards

exactly.
Makes the sack-decision look even worse. But it was in some news that the management are having second thoughts anyway.

Quite.
The British national curriculum states that all pupils should be able to swim, unaided mind you, a distance of 25 metres. That's far enough to get anyone out of trouble so there's really no need for life guards at all.

I don't know which story you are reading

Why don't you simply Bing or Google the story and get the full picture?

P.S.: It's always pi§§ poor practice to rely on a single source for information.:ok:

I heard something today on similar lines....a fireman on the tower frequency of an international airport asking for security to come and check them as they needed to cross the live side boundary to get to a hangar.

I hope it wasn't for a fire alarm... :ugh:

He's been offered his job back.

A Florida lifeguard who was fired after leaving his beach zone to save a drowning man has been offered his job back.

Tomas Lopez, 21, who was sacked by employer Jeff Ellis & Associates after his heroics Monday at Hallendale Beach, 18 miles north of Miami, should never have been fired, Jeff Ellis told the Sun-Sentinel Thursday.

"I am of the opinion that the supervisors acted hastily, " Ellis said. "It was not the appropriate course of action to take," he said.

Hero lifeguard who was fired after saving man outside his 'zone' offered back his job | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/05/hero-or-legal-liability/)

...and he's told them where to stuff it! :D:D:D

Yep and even better, several other life guards quit in solidarity over his termination.

Apparently, his former employers are saying that lower management had acted too quickly without all the facts.


Duh....ya think? :ugh:

Lower management probably followed policy to the letter because they've been threatened with the sack for not doing so themselves.

Questions:
1) Is it impossible to get insurance for these risks from any insurer, or could Mr Ellis not be bothered to pay the extra?
2) How did the city expect private employers to save money over city employees, except by worse pay and conditions?
3) Can we not have lawyers, insurers, abusive senior management, privatisation fiends etc easily identifiable, so that people know who not to save when they get into trouble?

The greater question is, can people think for themselves, without knee jerk reactions, that put the blame on others?

Apparently, the lifeguard is the only one with this common sense.:rolleyes:




As for your questions, I am sure they're rhetorical. If not, see above. :ok: ;)

First question wasn't rhetorical. I would be interested to know if any such insurance is available. The answer does not appear to be in any of the previous links or posts.

Good to know there are folks out there who are prepared to put common sense and good human principles above the money.

Good to know there are folks out there who are prepared to put common sense and good human principles above the money.

I suppose you refer to people who swim beyond the patrolled beaches and still expect prompt attention and rescue when they f*ck up?

That's why global warming is to be encouraged and should in fact be subsidized. The arrival of great white and tiger sharks off the British coastline would soon ensure that swimmers stayed within the areas of patrolled beaches, thus saving lives and giving greater job satisfaction to the life guard industry. It might even help open up this racially biased employment opportunity to women.

I suppose you refer to people who swim beyond the patrolled beaches and still expect prompt attention and rescue when they f*ck up?

Why do you suppose that? I was referring to the lifeguards.

Shy Torque:

I was being sarcastic.

A few facts about the case which are all in the public domain:

1) The Estonian guy who was in distress was outside of the patrolled beach area.

2) The life guard in question was alerted to this and communicated with his superior, who told the life guard not to leave his post.

3) The life guard nevertheless decided to abandon his allocated sector of the patrolled beach.

4) Upon arrival at the supposed "accident site", the swimmer in distress was found being attended to by a registered nurse who was off duty and happened to have passed by.

5) The life guard then still did not immediately return to his beach sector and leave the distressed swimmer in the care of the nurse (whose medical prowess is probably somewhat greater than that of a life guard).

Both my sons were dedicated life guards in Oz (where they do this on a voluntary basis). Neither of them would have given priority over anyone in distress "outside the flags" until their own sector of the patrolled beach would have been manned by a stand-in. Any member of the public on a patrolled beach has the right to expect that a life guard is on duty (and not attending to a d1ckhead who has f*cked up beyond the flags).

Life guards, paramedics and rescue personnel are not primarily there to cater to Darwin award candidates. Now please allocate the term "common sense" to the deserving individuals.

4) Upon arrival at the supposed "accident site", the swimmer in distress was found being attended to by a registered nurse who was off duty and happened to have passed by.

5) The life guard then still did not immediately return to his beach sector and leave the distressed swimmer in the care of the nurse (whose medical prowess is probably somewhat greater than that of a life guard).

If he has started helping somebody is he legally allowed to leave before official help arrives? Here (Belgium) if I stop at an accident and start helping somebody who's been injured, if I stop providing first aid before police/ambulance arrive I could be prosecuted. (However, it is perfectly acceptable not to help at all!)

1) The Estonian guy who was in distress was outside of the patrolled beach area.

Does the crime of swimming outside the flag, or being Estonian, carry the death penalty in Australia?

Does the crime of swimming outside the flag, or being Estonian, carry the death penalty in Australia?


indeed. and if he is one inch outside the desginated area, let him drown, but one inch inside it, expend all methods available ?

:confused:

So victor what you are saying is, if he was in the designated swimming area, then gets swept out by a strong current, its OK to leave him/her....

Er, you're all or mainly mad.

I would rather read about EASA's proposed Airport regulations.

Er, you're all or mainly mad.


and for Pprune this is a new discovery AO ??

:}:ok:;):oh:


I would rather read about EASA's proposed Airport regulations.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Now please allocate the term "common sense" to the deserving individuals.
Seems to me the lifeguard was trying to do was his best to save life as he saw fit at the time. Common sense or not depends on your personal perception.

Would a doctor refuse to attend a nearby incident to save the life of a patient because he was not registered at his surgery, or on the other side of the road?

In my time as a SAR pilot in SE Asia we rescued folks like this swimmer all the time. For example, I once had the unfortunate duty of flying back the body of a snorkeller who had ignored the "unsafe/dangerous currents" notices on that particular beach. His son had to come with us in the aircraft. Not a happy occasion. While we were away on that job there may have been other people in need of assistance. But we didn't know that when we were diverted off another task.

On another occasion I flew 120 miles offshore to try to find, and rescue five fishermen after their wooden boat was run over and smashed by the props of a large cargo ship in the dark. The fishermen couldn't swim and those boats had a reputation for carrying no navigation lights or safety equipment. Stupidity, you may say. We still went for them, although they were in international waters and therefore off our patch. We found two bodies, unfortunately no live ones. Again, while we were away, the territory had no other SAR cover. We did the best we could at the time.

So by your yardstick I have no common sense, either.

Uhh, Victor, you sound truly horrible... and a very updated, by-the-book person.
Ok, let's imagine: people run to the guard and tell someone's in trouble, he makes a call and then tells them, scratching his belly - sorry, guys, my boss told me not to leave my area, and he's a Darwin award candidate anyway, swimming outside the guarded territory. So forget about him and go on with your day.

Also, why would a nurse take the trouble? She was "off duty and happened to have passed by"? So it was clearly not her responsibility, how thoughtless of her.

No need to mention CPR is less complicated to do by 2 persons, also some other procedures, I guess.

Of course I understand you have to stick to what you originally stated, also the lifeguard's boss was of the same opinion. Otherwise the boss might have sent someone else to the territory to keep an eye on it while the guard was busy (surely he wasn't alone, though?), but that would probably have been too out-of-the-box, right?

Probes:

Like many others who applaud this life guard, you simply ignore that he was on duty to provide life saving services in specific sector of a patrolled beach. You do not leave your post unless you have arranged for a relief guard, because the safety of swimmers within a patrolled beach is your first priority. What happens outside of your sector comes second. If you wander off without a stand-in, it's a simple case of dereliction of duty.

And again: as it turned out, there was NO emergency in the non-patrolled area. The immediate issue had been dealt with, and the idiot victim was being attended to by an off-duty nurse. So our "hero" could have turned back to his post immediately without any risk, but he didn't.

Simples.

No, I do not ignore it. I assume he was not the only one on the beach (I may be wrong, of course) in his sector. And it probably would have been the duty of his boss to 'arrange someone'. (but then - why would he/she? It is not their duty to rescue people outside the 'zone', right?)
I was just trying to imagine how the guard would have told people - no, it's not my zone, and he was an idiot to go there in the first place anyway.
But of course your words are the words of a person who knows the rules, and I do not know if the guard was a hero or not - but somehow his human approach looks better than the rules. Sry.

The lifeguard in question was NOT the only lifeguard on duty in that sector. As I wrote in a previous posting, conveniently ignored by some, on all major beaches in the U.S. (and some not so major ones) no lifeguard is ever on duty by him or herself. They are usually in pairs, at a minimum. And that was the case here: HE WAS NOT ALONE IN HIS ASSIGNED SECTOR.

Compliance with company procedures is vital.

Compliance with company procedures is vital.


err no. that is a gutless, pass the buck opt out from any form of anything and is the way of the paper-pusher just biding his time between 0900 and 1730 for a few decades when he punches out for the last time and collects a gold watch.

company procedures have been written by a human for a dynamic environment and as time progresses company procedures may become redundant or fallible. they may in fact be fallible in the first place and blind adherence to them can set the company up as much for a liability problem as can deviation from them.

common sense and review of procedures if found to be lacking, problematic or faulty allows a company to refine and progress its operations as well as grow and develop as a company. the staid 'this is the way we've always done it' and 'these are the procedures' does nothing for a company apart from resign it to obsolescence.

bnut then again that's a difference i have found between dynamic progressive companies, they find a way of doing something and write procedures for it to work.. monolithic companies trapped by themselves say that's the way we've always done it no matter if an improvement or benefit can be found another way.

What stuckgear said!!! :D

"Company procedures" should be read as guidelines and not as written in stone regulations. It also takes "thinking outside the box" to ever take progressive steps forward. To blindly follow procedures without use of ones' noggin' gets no one anywhere.

Following procedures can, on occasion, be the only way to get management to wake up and change the procedures.

'I did it by your book an d it went t*ts up. Suggest YOU rewrite your book'.

As in a manager I had who complained 'Why do you keep telling me 'I told you so'?

My answer was ' If it happens often enough, perhaps you will bloody well listen to what I tell you and act accordingly'.

I lasted 7 years longer than he did before being made redundant.....

Sorry to hear he's lost his job, it's difficult to comment without hearing the full facts, but what I will say, is that I've observed these guy's over the year's, and they alway's seem to be on the ball.

Having watched them train in early April in The Atlantic, I can say that the boy's deserve the money they 'earn.And as a JB bonus, they once "saved" me:)

Anyway, here's one I took last week... On Patrol | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/13958644@<hidden>/7490045580/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13958644@<hidden>/7490045580/
http://www.pprune.org/%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/13958644@<hidden>/7490045580/%22%20title=%22On%20Patrol%20by%20gingernut2007,%20on%20Flickr%22%3E%3Cimg%20src=%22http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7279/7490045580_677af01086_b.jpg%22%20width=%221024%22%20height=%22685%22%20alt=%22On%20Patrol%22%3E%3C/a%3E

June storms RNLI at work | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/13958644@<hidden>/7356866206/)

Ps does anyone know how to instantly display flickr shots on pprune?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13958644@<hidden>/7356866206/

Wow, that is a pain. I tried several ways with no luck.

Did find this in the FAQ though. If you can interpret it, you're one up on me.

Where is the HTML code and photo file link?

The HTML code to embed a photo in a web page that you used to find on the All Sizes page is now only in the Share menu above the photo, to the right of the Actions menu. We now also include BBCode! (standard message board code)

There are a few cases where the code may not be available: 1) If the photo is restricted. 2) If that person has turned off "Share this" or access to original files.

The direct link to a photo file is no longer shown on the page. Per the Flickr Community Guidelines "pages on other websites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr." Linking directly to the photo file doesn't do this.

cheers ....................:O

Compliance with company procedures is vital.

For robots, and those humans who can't bear the thought of taking risk on behalf of others, yes, I'm sure you are correct.

"Walk on by, look the other way, not my responsibility, my ar$e is covered by company rules".

Is it impossible to get insurance for these risks from any insurer,


If you are talking about the Lifeguard then probably a standard Personal Accident and Accidental Death policy would cover it, with additional premium due to increased risk. Additionally, in the insurance market, there are syndicates and companies that have a section for 'Special Risks', (like dancers legs etc.), who would probably issue a policy.

If you are talking about the Darwinian swimmer then his standard PA insurance would apply provided he wasn't engaged in a sport or activity that was specifically excluded in the policy, by swimming outside the flags any payment would be reduced considerably as he will be deemed to have contributed to his own demise/injuries etc.

Ignore Shell Management, he/she is a Troll.

gingernut - that's the key probably (mostly is).
If that person has turned off "Share this" or access to original files.
And I'm glad I didn't reply to ShellM - stuckgear and rgbrock did it much better! ;)

P.S in summer we do some recreational water-activities, and really think about people's safety. Well, clients' safety. At the same time there are organisers who do not, and their clients have been in trouble and we have saved their skins more than once. A stupid thing to do, basically, they were idiots in the first place to get the cheapest and hope it will work like something of quality? Especially as it's not any mortal danger mostly, just getting wet (and cold), a couple of broken bones now and then...
Dunno. Somehow it won't do not to do anything.