Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Company explains why it fired lifeguard who saved life of man swimming outside designated area: "We are not a fire-rescue operation...We limit what we do to the protected swimming zones that we've agreed to service"   ( sun-sentinel.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Hallandale Beach, speed limits  
•       •       •

16010 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 3:50 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-05 08:03:13 AM  

cman: Who is running this company?


Lawyers or douchebags.

/may be redundant
 
2012-07-05 08:04:43 AM  

buckler: Here's what it boils down to for me: the guy is a lifeguard. He's hired to save lives. That's what he does. The posting of a "swim at your own risk" sign does not give the state or licensing organization free license to let you die. The guy went down the beach to care for the victim, saved the guy and got fired for it. He did his duty, though maybe not where his employer wanted him to do. His employer could have touted this as an example of the dedication of their employees, but instead went the route of OMG! POTENTIAL LIABILITY! NOT US! WE DIDN'T DO IT AND THAT GUY'S FIRED! From a human perspective, I find that despicable.


No, he was hired to provide lifeguard services in a specified area. Because a lifeguard can only protect a finite amount of area, they setup zones that they 'guarantee' to watch and patrol. Anyone outside said areas are warned that there is no one acting as a lifeguard and that they swim at their own risk. The municipality and licencing board have NO liability for people's lives outside those designated areas. By leaving his area his is putting at risk the lives of those he is sworn to protect.

As noted, the facts of THIS case are that he went well outside of his designated area and DID NOT save anyone, the 'victim' was assisted by other beach-goers. He did not perform the duties for which he was hired, he abandoned his post. The company's actions in firing him are wholly legitimate although understandably ill-received.

The one who deserves the most blame in this is the idiot who decides to almost-swim outside of the areas in which life-guarding services are provided. Thus endangering his own life and those of others.
 
2012-07-05 08:05:16 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: By leaving their zone, the lifeguard really did put the company at risk.


Your grammar is horrible and so is your argument. It has been clearly established that there were 2 other lifeguards manning the zone while he was off saving someone from drowning.
 
2012-07-05 08:06:10 AM  

lordargent: buckler: Fair enough. The number I chose was for the sake of argument. I would then argue that the company was negligent in not providing enough coverage.

"The man had been at an "unprotected" stretch of the beach, where visitors are warned to swim at their own risk, city officials said."

"The city doesn't provide lifeguards in front of the condominiums up and down the beach"

"While he does not doubt that Lopez was "good intentioned," Ellis said the company's first responsibility is to ensure that service for its zone is not disrupted, potentially endangering beachgoers there and opening up the company to liability issues."

// So the company even think he was doing the right thing, for legal reasons, they can't keep him. It sucks, but those are the breaks. A classic case of "just following orders" vs court marshalling.


This would have been a prime opportunity for the PR response to read "Repeated calls to the company were not returned".
 
2012-07-05 08:07:03 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: theknuckler_33: Ooh, burn. You're right, That post of yours that I quoted was thoughtful debate commentary. How silly of me.

Yes, no one in this thread was going on about privatization and how evil it is. Nope, I was reading a different thread.

Should have just called me a troll since you disagree with me, it would have been easier for you.


What you did is the text book definition of a straw man. You took complaints about privatization and went to the far extreme suggesting that meant that people think government runs like an efficient clock and never screws up. As if there isn't an entire spectrum of circumstances in between. You aren't a troll, but you are using bad logical fallacies. False dichotomy combined with straw man.
 
2012-07-05 08:07:11 AM  
No, the bottom line is that the lifeguard did the right thing. Policy should be guidelines, not worshiped as carved-in-stone commandments from on high. Common sense and mitigating factors should be taken into account, such as that someone could have died if the lifeguard didn't go to help.

I hope that city takes this into account when contact renewal time comes around: that this is a company that values its internal policies more than human lives. Is that really the kind of company you want to be protecting your citizens? Maybe for garbage collection or park maintenance, but for an emergency service?
 
2012-07-05 08:08:09 AM  
Wouldn't the fact he didn't even go into the ocean work in his favor in this bureaucratic bs? He didn't go swimming into an unprotected zone he gave medical assistance to someone nearby dying as was likely his duty as someone trained to like others have said.

WTF don't they have a backup lifeguard if constant monitoring is what this company is contractually guaranteeing? Don't they become liable every time a lifeguard is assisting someone in the zone and the area is left unmonitored?

/and a backup for that backup
/and a bac........
 
2012-07-05 08:10:36 AM  

Virulency
2012-07-05 03:53:18 AM

when people say they want to run government like a business this is kind of what i would like to avoid and why it doesn't work like a business...

Because govt. does it better, right?
police, firefighters watch as man drowns

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-08-29/news/18242434_1_110-story -t owers-caller-evacuate
The PA, ..., has defended its evacuation procedures, saying they were instrumental in saving as many as 25,000 lives.

The transcript, released yesterday by the PA, is the first evidence that the agency's workers initially told some of the stranded not to evacuate the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
 
2012-07-05 08:10:49 AM  

kevinatilusa: When I was in college I took one Organizational Management course taught by a visiting Business Prof. Part of the course was a unit on "Business Ethics", which basically boiled down to:

Step 1: Professor/textbook states an ethical dilemma
Step 2: We figure out which solution makes the company the most money.
Step 3: Whichever solution we found in step 2 is the ethical solution, because "a company's only ethical responsibility is the fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder."

Fortunately, I was able to hold my nose enough to regurgitate all this on the exam.


It is sickening, but anything else is borderline malfeasance.

/What is sad is I was able to come the same conclusion as above with only a cynical view of capitalism.
//But no, it isn't about greed, not at all.
///Something something Deepwater Horizon.
 
2012-07-05 08:11:22 AM  
Had this headline read, "Man drowns while lifeguard runs 1/4 mile to unprotected/unwatched beach to save asshat," you guys would have been all up his shiat for risking the lives of those in the area they are supposed to be in.

/in other words, this poor bastage was farked no matter what
 
2012-07-05 08:12:29 AM  

almandot: /and a backup for that backup


Apparently they had exactly that.

So, as long as more than two people in the zone didn't commence drowning while he was saving this other guy's life, everything would be ok.
 
2012-07-05 08:13:22 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: YouFarkingIdiot: I love how the simplistic mind works

You must, because you demonstrate it so well.

/see where I already addressed the conflict of interest objection.


And the rest of it? Oh, to be so naive.
 
2012-07-05 08:13:32 AM  

fluffytuff: Had this headline read, "Man drowns while lifeguard runs 1/4 mile to unprotected/unwatched beach to save asshat," you guys would have been all up his shiat for risking the lives of those in the area they are supposed to be in.

/in other words, this poor bastage was farked no matter what


Don't forget "Man drowns while three lifeguards look on and do nothing"

At least then he'd share the notoriety with the other two.
 
2012-07-05 08:14:41 AM  
dumb pr move firing this guy. I hope it hits this company in the pocketbook hard.
 
2012-07-05 08:15:25 AM  

YouFarkingIdiot: Oh, to be so naive.


Cut the personal insults, calm down, and let me know what your argument is.
 
2012-07-05 08:15:25 AM  
https://www.jellis.com/contact.html
 
2012-07-05 08:15:26 AM  
A hypothetical drowning person inside the protected swimming zone doesn't take precedence over an actual drowning person outside it.
 
2012-07-05 08:15:34 AM  
He can do the job you pay him for, and then some. Shut up and pay the man for what he does for you, then shake his hand for the extra he does for others.
 
2012-07-05 08:17:23 AM  

jrw8778: Find a single example of a lifeguard service being sued because their lifeguard saved someone's life. Just one will do. The apocrapha of trial lawyers making it impossible for people to do anything is total hogwash and has been since conservative propaganda first touted it. How does it feel to know that you are advocating for someone to die in the pursuit of money? That doesn't bother you at all?


1) There are plenty of examples of people suing good samaritans
2) It's not just saving that person's life, it's the risk of getting sued by someone in the contracted property
3) If you would open your eyes, you'd see that it's not hogwash. But the sun...it blinds you!
4) I'm not advocating for that at all. Maybe that's the obvious conclusion for someone who has no ability to think. But other people would realize that I'd advocate changing the laws and the litigation climate in order to remove the barriers to doing the right thing.
 
2012-07-05 08:17:24 AM  
So the real story is that lifeguard ran 1/4 mile from his post, found a guy had ALREADY been saved and was being attended to by a qualified individual and paramedics had been contacted.....yet he decided to STAY, thus risking the lives of everyone he was being paid to protect.


Had he run down, found the situation under control and ran back to his post he'd still have a job.
 
2012-07-05 08:18:18 AM  
I could understand if he tried to stop an armed robbery.

Company is wrong here.
 
2012-07-05 08:19:04 AM  

LarryDan43: Look, the director has suspected for some months now that his wife and perhaps his daughter have been banging that lifeguard. He's got an excuse to fire him and he's taking it.


This is possible as well.
 
2012-07-05 08:19:48 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: YouFarkingIdiot: Oh, to be so naive.

Cut the personal insults, calm down, and let me know what your argument is.


I already told you what the argument is. When money goes somewhere (government, charity, whatever), then it is in the best interests of that recipient to have more lawsuits, more ridiculous verdicts, etc.

And lawyers are not going to work for free.
 
2012-07-05 08:21:48 AM  
Only in the United States of Avarice could a life guard be fired for saving a life.
 
2012-07-05 08:23:30 AM  
so let me get this straight. first they say they had to fire him cause of company rules yet the area was still being covered and claim that due to liability issues he shouldn't leave his area to lend aid and now they are saying that whether people are in the protected or unprotected area that the lifeguards should help... its like wtf... that totally contridicts what they said yesterday about liability issues by helping people in unprotected areas.
 
2012-07-05 08:24:43 AM  

lordargent: Until something goes wrong and they get sued by someone who uses the fact that they were outside of the zone they were contracted to protect as part of the prosecution.


Bingo.
 
2012-07-05 08:25:44 AM  

Hobodeluxe: dumb pr move firing this guy. I hope it hits this company in the pocketbook hard.


Yep... This is what happens when you let dumbasses with MBAs make decisions.

This could have been a great PR boon for the Company ("Lifeguard goes above and beyond to save swimmer's life"), but they've squandered that by being more concerned about their bottom line.

They're contract should be terminated as soon as possible.
 
2012-07-05 08:27:16 AM  
Jeez... "Their Contract" even.
 
2012-07-05 08:30:35 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: So the real story is that lifeguard ran 1/4 mile from his post, found a guy had ALREADY been saved and was being attended to by a qualified individual and paramedics had been contacted.....yet he decided to STAY, thus risking the lives of everyone he was being paid to protect.


Had he run down, found the situation under control and ran back to his post he'd still have a job.


it wasn't 1/4 mile. it was more like 60 yds from his boundary sign. I saw this on the news last night. and about 6 of his fellow lifeguards have quit in a solidarity protest with him.
and whether it was "his job" to assist or not he did what he thought was the moral and right thing to do.
 
2012-07-05 08:33:01 AM  

YouFarkingIdiot: I don't like the position this company takes (or similar ones, like where you can't stop a shoplifter or basically do anything in defense of an illegal act for fear of a lawsuit). But you lefties made your bed...you can look at yourself if you don't like it.


Stopping shoplifters (if you're not a trained professional) can be endangering a life for the sake of merchandise -- a poor calculus no matter what your politics is. To fire somebody for actually saving a life is a terrible decision.
 
2012-07-05 08:35:58 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: lordargent: Until something goes wrong and they get sued by someone who uses the fact that they were outside of the zone they were contracted to protect as part of the prosecution.

Bingo.


because let's face facts. a life isn't worth the slight possibility of a lawsuit. right? if there's 1/1000th of a chance your boss might lose a little money then fark that dying person right?
 
2012-07-05 08:37:14 AM  

YouFarkingIdiot: When money goes somewhere (government, charity, whatever), then it is in the best interests of that recipient to have more lawsuits, more ridiculous verdicts, etc.


Yep, when the recipient is an individual that is exactly why people bring frivolous lawsuits and tort reform is needed. Which is why I would rather pay down the federal debt (or give it to charity) than encourage frivolous lawsuits.
 
2012-07-05 08:38:51 AM  

IAAl: By leaving his area his is putting at risk the lives of those he is sworn to protect.


"Sworn to protect?"

Really? An $8.25/hour job is "sworn to protect" over being a decent human being?

I suppose for some Republicans, that might make sense. I'm not sworn to protect anything except my own well-being and sense of decency. If my job gets in the way of that, screw my job.
 
2012-07-05 08:39:03 AM  
This is the world we live in. No good deed goes unpunished.

Do something generous, people see you as a mark and try to take advantage. Do something brave, people see you as reckless and a liability, and maybe you get fired. Anyone who steps outside of the selfish, mediocre norm is to be punished.
 
2012-07-05 08:39:38 AM  

Hobodeluxe: DoBeDoBeDo: So the real story is that lifeguard ran 1/4 mile from his post, found a guy had ALREADY been saved and was being attended to by a qualified individual and paramedics had been contacted.....yet he decided to STAY, thus risking the lives of everyone he was being paid to protect.


Had he run down, found the situation under control and ran back to his post he'd still have a job.

it wasn't 1/4 mile. it was more like 60 yds from his boundary sign. I saw this on the news last night. and about 6 of his fellow lifeguards have quit in a solidarity protest with him.
and whether it was "his job" to assist or not he did what he thought was the moral and right thing to do.


Okay so 60 yards, the situation was still under control when he arrived, and he had other swimmers to protect. I can see both liability as well as ethical issues involved. Why stick around when the situation is already handled? Don't know if that's a firing, but I don't know if I'd be comfortable with someone being so engrossed in situation normal things that he "forgets" about those in his charge.

Would have been a different story had he actually made a rescue, as it is, seems he showed up late and hung around.
 
2012-07-05 08:40:02 AM  

IAAl: buckler: Here's what it boils down to for me: the guy is a lifeguard. He's hired to save lives. That's what he does. The posting of a "swim at your own risk" sign does not give the state or licensing organization free license to let you die. The guy went down the beach to care for the victim, saved the guy and got fired for it. He did his duty, though maybe not where his employer wanted him to do. His employer could have touted this as an example of the dedication of their employees, but instead went the route of OMG! POTENTIAL LIABILITY! NOT US! WE DIDN'T DO IT AND THAT GUY'S FIRED! From a human perspective, I find that despicable.

No, he was hired to provide lifeguard services in a specified area. Because a lifeguard can only protect a finite amount of area, they setup zones that they 'guarantee' to watch and patrol. Anyone outside said areas are warned that there is no one acting as a lifeguard and that they swim at their own risk. The municipality and licencing board have NO liability for people's lives outside those designated areas. By leaving his area his is putting at risk the lives of those he is sworn to protect.

As noted, the facts of THIS case are that he went well outside of his designated area and DID NOT save anyone, the 'victim' was assisted by other beach-goers. He did not perform the duties for which he was hired, he abandoned his post. The company's actions in firing him are wholly legitimate although understandably ill-received.

The one who deserves the most blame in this is the idiot who decides to almost-swim outside of the areas in which life-guarding services are provided. Thus endangering his own life and those of others.


Because I keep seeing this argument reposted, first of all, he did not abandon his post, he was making a life saving attempt and his zone was covered down on just like if someone was drowning within his zone. And I am going to repeat this just so we are clear, his zone was covered which means no additional lives were at risk at any time.

Second of all, the lifeguard had no way of knowing whether or not another good samaritan would make a life saving attempt and to the best of his knowledge, he was the only one making an attempt. Just because someone "beat" him to the save doesn't and shouldn't have any significance on his decision to attempt the save.

Third, lifeguards are constantly recruited to make saves outside of their zones especially in zones that are swim at your own risk. Me and my wife have both been required to make life saving attempts outside of our designated zones and in swim at your own risk sections of the beach.

Finally, did you know that even if you swim at a beach with lifeguards on duty it is still swim at your own risk, and while I am sure that attempts are made to sue lifeguards that failed to make a rescue, unless they can prove gross negligence, they will lose.
 
2012-07-05 08:40:48 AM  
I would like to point out it is extraordinarily unlikely that - in Florida, an at-will-employment, job-creator's paradise if ever there was one - Mister Lifeguard actually possessed any kind of farking contract with his employer. In fact, I would go so far as to bet the not-dead swimmer's life that his employment application contained some variation on the words

"... nothing herein shall be construed as a contract of employment between you, Mister Lifeguard and we, AssDouche BeachService LLC."
 
2012-07-05 08:41:15 AM  

Confabulat: IAAl: By leaving his area his is putting at risk the lives of those he is sworn to protect.

"Sworn to protect?"

Really? An $8.25/hour job is "sworn to protect" over being a decent human being?

I suppose for some Republicans, that might make sense. I'm not sworn to protect anything except my own well-being and sense of decency. If my job gets in the way of that, screw my job.


because being a "model employee" is more important than being a decent human being.
 
2012-07-05 08:41:28 AM  
Didn't this company already say that, basically, the beach was covered by other lifeguards and at no time were they in danger of not protecting their area?

Doesn't that sort of invalidate their argument for firing the guy?
 
2012-07-05 08:42:33 AM  

Confabulat: If your business philosophy chooses proper zonation over protecting human life, your business philosophy is wrong and quite possibly evil.


Especially if you are in the business of saving lives. I agree.
 
2012-07-05 08:44:35 AM  

dlp211: IAAl: buckler: Here's what it boils down to for me: the guy is a lifeguard. He's hired to save lives. That's what he does. The posting of a "swim at your own risk" sign does not give the state or licensing organization free license to let you die. The guy went down the beach to care for the victim, saved the guy and got fired for it. He did his duty, though maybe not where his employer wanted him to do. His employer could have touted this as an example of the dedication of their employees, but instead went the route of OMG! POTENTIAL LIABILITY! NOT US! WE DIDN'T DO IT AND THAT GUY'S FIRED! From a human perspective, I find that despicable.

No, he was hired to provide lifeguard services in a specified area. Because a lifeguard can only protect a finite amount of area, they setup zones that they 'guarantee' to watch and patrol. Anyone outside said areas are warned that there is no one acting as a lifeguard and that they swim at their own risk. The municipality and licencing board have NO liability for people's lives outside those designated areas. By leaving his area his is putting at risk the lives of those he is sworn to protect.

As noted, the facts of THIS case are that he went well outside of his designated area and DID NOT save anyone, the 'victim' was assisted by other beach-goers. He did not perform the duties for which he was hired, he abandoned his post. The company's actions in firing him are wholly legitimate although understandably ill-received.

The one who deserves the most blame in this is the idiot who decides to almost-swim outside of the areas in which life-guarding services are provided. Thus endangering his own life and those of others.

Because I keep seeing this argument reposted, first of all, he did not abandon his post, he was making a life saving attempt and his zone was covered down on just like if someone was drowning within his zone. And I am going to repeat this just so we are clear, his zone was covered which means no additional ...


this

it's all about the owner of the lifeguard company getting paid for that extra area. to him that's egregious that someone in that free zone got saved and he doesn't make money for that zone.
 
2012-07-05 08:45:21 AM  

frenchcheesemuseum: Confabulat: If your business philosophy chooses proper zonation over protecting human life, your business philosophy is wrong and quite possibly evil.

Especially if you are in the business of saving lives. I agree.


Except they are NOT in the business of saving lives. They are in the business oof providing contract lifeguard services. There is a difference. Duh!
 
2012-07-05 08:46:18 AM  

buckler: As a lifeguard, his first duty is to life, regardless of who pays him.


He is employed as a lifeguard, it's not his life's calling. This man was pulled from the ocean before Lopez arrived. If a child had drowned on his watch because of this, the outrage would be 180 degrees the other way.


Would you seriously watch a person drown three meters outside your "zone" and do nothing?

The definition of "meter" has apparently changed. The incident happened 1500 feet from the edge of the guarded zone; who knows how far from the guard's actual station. And, again, the man was out of the water being attended to by someone else.

If the condominiums, which charge a hefty condo fee, I'm sure, care about who swims on their beach, they should be employing lifeguards. Instead, there are signs "Swim at your own risk." If the Estonian visitor can't read English, and can't figure out why no one is swimming there, don't be surprised if he and Darwin soon have a little chat.
 
2012-07-05 08:46:33 AM  

jrw8778: theknuckler_33: Fausts Fist: Holy batshiat -

I've read the first fifty comments, skimmed the rest and the amount of people who clearly have no idea how businesses are run is staggering. Sure the lifeguard did the right thing in saving this mans life but he did violate his - i assume - contractual duties to his employer. If it is usual business practice in this sector and or kind of business to fire an employee for this kind of trangression no amount of 'but he did the morally right thing' cries by idealistic armchair crusaders will change anything.
If this is not the case, and I certainly have only the faintest idea about how the law is on your side of the pond and he files&wins an unlawful termination suit against the lifeguard service, then, by all means get angry at them.

Until then - just remember that a business is run for profits not morality.
And if that seems 'wrong' I'd recommend either opening a business of your own or growing up.

Bad PR is also bad for business. Firing a guy who just saved someone's life is pretty bad PR. I think everyone here realizes why the business did what they did. I think it is pretty clear though that they could easily have handled it better. Commend him for his bravery, but pull him into the office, explain again why they have their rules about staying within the boundary, tell him that was strike 1, and next time, call the police.

What is wrong with you people? We're not talking about engaging in a a quick game of "doctor" behind the beach house with a hot chick, we're talking about someone's life. In essence you have to tell this guy: "Look, if someone is in trouble outside the designated lines, you have to watch him die." That's not good business, nor is it good ethics or morals. It's reprehensible on every level imaginable. I own my own business, if my employee was out performing a task for me, and came upon a accident etc. and rendered help to the injured, I'd probably give him or her a raise. If money means more than human life you are an evil person, period.


Hrm. It would depend on the life. A known pedophile? Definitely less important than any amount of money. Casey Anthony? Depends on how much money the lynch mob was offering for her. Britney Spears? Depends on how desperate someone might be to rent out her cavernous vagina for a circus event or auto show.
 
2012-07-05 08:48:24 AM  
What a Win-Win situation. They would have fired the guy if the person had drowned. the publicity would have been worse. But the employee would be all to blame.

Perhaps this company's decisions makers need to be let off lightly with just a little complimentary waterboarding experience. And then offered a job on the Florida State Tea Party Death Panel.
 
2012-07-05 08:48:56 AM  
muck4doo: My soapbox is tiny. I'll let you elaborate in your huge "tracts of land" on why this was the reasonable response

But it's still a soapbox. And I find knee-jerk responses which say, or make it look like I said, something I never said or supported to be annoying when you attach my name to them.

Funny thing is, I never said it was a reasonable response. It is, however, a byproduct of a litigious society, and a profession which is horribly litigious and attractive to people looking for a lawsuit. And what they did was perfectly legal, backed by the fact he violated their company policies. Yes, it was for a good reason - but no. It doesn't protect him. And no, I'm not talking about the guy who's drowning. I'm talking about the entitled little helicopter mother who felt her precious little snowflake wasn't getting the attention he or she deserved, and decided to sue them. They felt like this guy was a liability in that arena, and did the recourse they felt was necessary.

I've been on the receiving end of being fired for doing what was right, not what was policy. It's not fun, and not right by any measure, but as the State told me, there's nothing I can do about it.

muck4doo: Why do you fire life guards for saving lives, other than that whole "you and your organization are douchebags" thing?

Because they can. They have every right as an employer to.do so, and the guy gave them ammunition to do it.

It doesn't make it right, ethical, or moral to do so. I never argued it did. Please don't try to make it look like I did.

On the other hand, making off-color, blatantly trolling remarks about murdering them isn't right, ethical, or moral either.
 
2012-07-05 08:49:04 AM  

Hobodeluxe: it's all about the owner of the lifeguard company getting paid for that extra area. to him that's egregious that someone in that free zone got saved and he doesn't make money for that zone.


pretty much this.

it's sounding like the company is firing him for doing personal business on company time. that's f
 
2012-07-05 08:50:11 AM  
that's f*cked
 
2012-07-05 08:50:42 AM  
The lifeguard had a duty to the company. The company had a duty to to the people on the stretch of beach they're assigned to patrol. End of story.

By leaving his post he put the public at risk. The rule abiding public who chose to swim on a stretch of beach that was lifeguard monitored. To save some fool who didn't respect the ocean and chose to swim nearly half a mile away from a monitored section of the beach.

The only one who would be responsible for the death would be the person entering the ocean. Too many people are quick to take idiot risks and then feel entitled that others should risk their lives to take care of them.
 
2012-07-05 08:51:09 AM  
frenchcheesemuseum: Especially if you are in the business of saving lives. I agree.

Except that things such as jurisdiction and territorial boundaries are rather important in real life, and self-dispatching is a practice that is frowned upon and often prohibited by State law.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report