Staredit Network

okay, ima get to the point.

when you guard and have to rescue someone and perfom CPR and stuff, if you make a mistake or miss a procedure, you can be legally sewed for over 100k.

now heres a story i heard about:

4 lifeguards where watching their pool, when a YMCA camp came to swim. now the counsler's told all the kids to jump in. so there was 4 guards and about 100 little six year olds. someone was pushed down and knocked out, and he died bacause the lifeguards didn't notice him. the kid was under water for 25 minutes before anyone noticed. now the parents sewed the pool company, all four lifeguards, YMCA and the counslers and won all the cases.

does anyone but me think thats unfair? sewing lifeguards because you were unable to see a child that was knocked out in the pool.

there is a law protecting guards, the good samaritan law. it says that if you do everything correctly and did everything in your power to prevent the death of someone, you cannot be sewed.

what do you guys think?

Well, the councilor should definately been sewed, they had full responsibility of the children. The YMCA should have been sewed as well for there should have been rules and regulations as to how many people in the pool at once. The life guards being sewed is a little unfair though. They basically couldn't look after everyone at once, which they had no control over how many children they had to look after. So they were just doing their job, even though it was too much for them to handle. Perhaps they should have warned the counsilors or the YMCA they couldn't handle 100 kids in a pool, but thats generally for the YMCA to know.

It's "sued".
And yeah your little six year old died because someone wasn't doing there job? I know that you might pull up a "there were a lot of kids" but if there were not enough lifeguards, then they should've gotten more. The Counselers and Lifeguards are in charge of protecting your child while they have gun at camp or whatever. And they failed at that job, and now a little kid is dead. That seems fair to me. And they didn't do everything in there power to save the kid if they never even saw him. If you're talking a pool like i'm thinking (meaning not a lake that's 3 miles wide) then they should've seen it. They also should've seen the kid fall in, someone should've seen something.

Which now brings up the issue of common sense in the US Justice System...Or rather the lack of it.
If there should've been more lifeguards on duty, It wasn't their job to hire more lifeguards. The owners of the pool, YMCA, and the counselers were responsible for offering a safe and enjoyable environment for them to play....And therefore hiring extra lifeguards.

If there were 100 little kids and only 4 guards I think it is unfair to charge them. They are only 4 surrounded by a hundred kids that most probably don't behave well. The noise, the moovement, you can't see everything.

[attachmentid=18890]

a diagram of the pool at the time. the grey dot's are the guards and the blue is the kids. the black is where the dead kid was.

each guard has a certin zone they are responseible. 2 of the guards had overlapping zones where the kid died. the others had no way to see over there. during a rotation, they noticed a kid and they jumped in.

how fast can you see the kid from a first glance?

people will sue any one for anything these day. -_-

You should add a scale. Like from that diagram in looks like the pool is 30 square feet. Which it's obviously not. And still, we're not paid to keep little kids from dying. Can you repeat that to yourself? A little kid is dead, they died at a place where they were suppose to be kept safe, there's nothing you could do about it. But someone was there to keep them safe and they failed and now the kid is dead.
I can see it pretty easily, it didn't take me 25 minutes to find him.

well just imagine what it would look like from a more horazantal angle

the kid died because no one commuenicated to thew guards that he was dead.

there was nothing the guards could do about it. the pool was almost at it's limit of people.

does any one think that it's a legit reason to be sued? you are being employed so shouldn't the blame go to the company and not the employee?

Everyone should be punished to some extent. The lifeguards for doing a bad job. (I wouldn't want a lifeguard who has had a child drown in his pool) The YMCA company for not having more rules for that kind of stuff. Also, having 100 six year old in a pool is not very sanitary.

sanatary isn't a problem (unless you think that 6 year olds cant contral their boawls)

the lifeguards couldn't do much to prevent it.

the YMCA should have been sued out of their minds.

in my employee handbook, it states that a lifeguards job is to prevent death or injury to the best of one's ability. does that mean that if you are doing your best to stop that kid from dying, then you are doing your job correctly?

Yeah, I quess you are kinda right. Having 100 little 6 yearls must have been overwhelming. (With the 25:1 ratio of children to lifeguards). I once went to a pool after 1st Graders had a party there. The water was yellow. Sanitary places are nice.

Those kids were not paid and left in charge by parents to "communicate" in case someone gets hurt. The lifeguards and Counslers were, and they didn't.


If it was over the limit then that's also illegal. But I'm sure the limit for 4 life guards is not 100 kids.


Why should the company paid for what you freaked up? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why should the owner of the YMCA who sits in his condo in Hawii get blammed because a lifeguard was blind and let a kid die. That doesn't make any sense.

the fact of the matter is that the lifeguards were doing their job to the best of their ablilty. there was nothing they could have done to prevent this.

the pool wasn't at it's limit, it says in our book, a lifeguard should be able to watch 40 people.

the YMCA is at fault cause they are the ones telling all the kid's to jump in at the same time.