• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. lifeguard fired for rescue outside beach zone

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fla. lifeguard fired for rescue outside beach zone

Read more here: Fla. lifeguard fired for rescue outside beach zone - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com
Click to expand...
I get that liability issues are a very real concern for companies, but this still disgusts me. Being disgusted as I am, though, I am going to refrain from piling on the company too much and say that this is a perfect example of how desperately we NEED tort reform in this country.

ETA: This lifeguard is a hero, IMO. And kudos to those other lifeguards who quit in protest.
 
You gotta be kidding me.

A lifeguard was fired for saving somebody's life, because there was a slight chance of some mild legal inconvenience for the company. I can't even... what?
 
Ah yes, that whole private companies can do the job better schtick! Anybody else notice that the company which fired the lifeguard was being paid $334,000 a year for four lifeguards and a supervisor. How many think the life guards were being paid $50K a year?

Tort reform would do nothing for this situation. Florida already has put in place many of the requirements that "tort reform" advocates promote.
 
radcen said:
I get that liability issues are a very real concern for companies, but this still disgusts me. Being disgusted as I am, though, I am going to refrain from piling on the company too much and say that this is a perfect example of how desperately we NEED tort reform in this country.

ETA: This lifeguard is a hero, IMO. And kudos to those other lifeguards who quit in protest.
Click to expand...

Yes he is a hero radcen and your absolutely right...lawyers running around salivating to sue ham sandwichs and hamsters for ANYTHING is the only way many of the make a buck....the are the force that is a big part of driving all insurance through the roof...tort reform is needed yesterday...but every time they lobby and block it.
 
Somerville said:
Ah yes, that whole private companies can do the job better schtick! Anybody else notice that the company which fired the lifeguard was being paid $334,000 a year for four lifeguards and a supervisor. How many think the life guards were being paid $50K a year?

Tort reform would do nothing for this situation. Florida already has put in place many of the requirements that "tort reform" advocates promote.
Click to expand...

Salaries + payroll taxes + regulatory expenses + insurance + bennies + unemployment insurance+ workman's comp + income taxes + incoporation costs = a big chunk out of 334 g's.

The last thing this company can afford is a million dollar lawsuit.

The national average profit of a corporation is 20% +/-. 20% of $334,000 is $66,800, which is the percentage of the gross, not the net. This company would have to fold up their tents and declare bankruptcy, which would result in everyone losing their jobs, not just one person.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Salaries + payroll taxes + regulatory expenses + insurance + bennies + unemployment insurance+ workman's comp + income taxes + incoporation costs = a big chunk out of 334 g's.

The last thing this company can afford is a million dollar lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Cheaper for the taxpayers to have the lifeguards as county employees like in Palm Beach County.

The last thing this company can afford is for its CEO to take a pay cut.
 
I hope he sues the company for wrongful dismissal.. if that is even possible in the US.
 
radcen said:
I get that liability issues are a very real concern for companies, but this still disgusts me. Being disgusted as I am, though, I am going to refrain from piling on the company too much and say that this is a perfect example of how desperately we NEED tort reform in this country.

ETA: This lifeguard is a hero, IMO. And kudos to those other lifeguards who quit in protest.
Click to expand...


Before one posts about the need for tort reform, maybe one should know a bit more about the law.

768.13 Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.—

(2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who
gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either
in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a
public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency
which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an
emergency outside of a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place having proper
medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims
thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care
or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or
arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary
reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar
circumstances.
Click to expand...

I do believe the fired lifeguard has a good lawsuit ahead, it is going to cost the company a whole lot more than any liability issues that might have arisen - which would have been paid by the company's insurance - IF they had such coverage as is normally required for businesses operating in this area.
 
Somerville said:
Before one posts about the need for tort reform, maybe one should know a bit more about the law.

I do believe the fired lifeguard has a good lawsuit ahead, it is going to cost the company a whole lot more than any liability issues that might have arisen - which would have been paid by the company's insurance - IF they had such coverage as is normally required for businesses operating in this area.
Click to expand...

The Good Samaritan Law protects one from civil liability. It doesn't protect one's job. Although this guy probably did the right thing, the right thing sometimes has consequences. And some of us even understand what that means. In his good faith effort to save another swimmer in a "swim-at-your-own-risk" area, he left the lifeguard-protected area of the beach unprotected. In theory, he might as well have gone to the library.
 
Somerville said:
I do believe the fired lifeguard has a good lawsuit ahead, it is going to cost the company a whole lot more than any liability issues that might have arisen - which would have been paid by the company's insurance - IF they had such coverage as is normally required for businesses operating in this area.
Click to expand...
Why do so many people think that insurance coverage is money that falls magically from the sky with no consequences? Fact is, insurance claim payouts have a detrimental long-term effect that can raise future rates, or even cause coverage to be denied at renewal time. That history follows a business around.
 
MaggieD said:
The Good Samaritan Law protects one from civil liability. It doesn't protect one's job. Although this guy probably did the right thing, the right thing sometimes has consequences. And some of us even understand what that means. In his good faith effort to save another swimmer in a "swim-at-your-own-risk" area, he left the lifeguard-protected area of the beach unprotected. In theory, he might as well have gone to the library.
Click to expand...
According to a tv news report I saw, there were three other lifeguards on duty at the time as well, so he didn't actually leave his area unprotected.
 
Who could ask a lifeguard NOT to rescue a person in trouble?

Can an employer dictate that you must stand by and watch a man drown when you have the skill and training to save him?

This is all about pencil pushers and "policy makers".. who cannot think on their feet..
 
radcen said:
Why do so many people think that insurance coverage is money that falls magically from the sky with no consequences? Fact is, insurance claim payouts have a detrimental long-term effect that can raise future rates, or even cause coverage to be denied at renewal time. That history follows a business around.
Click to expand...


Then why have insurance? If you require payment for a claim filed but that eventually hurts your business more than the compensation paid out - what's the point of having insurance. You seem to be arguing that it would be better for a company or person found liable for injury to another to just pay for the injury instead of paying insurance premiums which would/could cause the company to go belly-up "eventually".

History tells us that in the good ol' days, a company found liable for injury would often just declare itself bankrupt and the owners would then start another company doing the same business. I actually worked for a guy who did that with several companies both before I worked for him and after I left his employ. Not an ethical person but he always made money for himself. Four companies where he was the CEO went bankrupt but his personal bank account increased every time.
 
apdst said:
Salaries + payroll taxes + regulatory expenses + insurance + bennies + unemployment insurance+ workman's comp + income taxes + incoporation costs = a big chunk out of 334 g's.

The last thing this company can afford is a million dollar lawsuit.

The national average profit of a corporation is 20% +/-. 20% of $334,000 is $66,800, which is the percentage of the gross, not the net. This company would have to fold up their tents and declare bankruptcy, which would result in everyone losing their jobs, not just one person.
Click to expand...

The company ALSO provides life guards at all of the city's pools, which probably requires a few paid employees as well. Reading is for the mental, I mean, fundamental. Contracts put up for competitive bid do save money, that is why the city does that, rather than pay ever increasing salary and benefit packages for public employees.

While firing the employee may have been "extreme" in your view (mine as well, BTW, a week's suspension would have sufficed), the JOB is to guard YOUR beach, not ALL beaches. Suppose it was a bank guard, or school security position, that was abandoned, would it be OK to leave that post for "emergencies" 1/4 mile away, leaving your intended duty area exposed to threat? That leaves your intended duties, that which you are PAID to do, undone, exposing those MANY to risk to "save" someone already receiving assistance. The situtation was NOT that a "rescue" was required, as by the time he arrived to "help" the vicitim, he was already safely on the beach, being assisted by others and paramedics were on the way. He is geting more money (and fame) now doing the TV talk show/news circuit that he ever would have made at his $8.25/hour job.

BTW, your "average corporate profit" figures are WAY off, unless your "average corporation" is Apple. See link: Debunking S&P 500 Profit Margin Anxiety - Seeking Alpha
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
He is geting more money (and fame) now doing the TV talk show/news circuit that he ever would have made at his $8.25/hour job.
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to say the man ran down the beach to help in a rescue simply because he 'knew' he would make more money by getting fired?


Here in South Florida, we have some nice court records concerning various county officials going to jail because of the payoffs they received for ensuring some of those "money-saving" contracts were signed.
 
Somerville said:
Then why have insurance? If you require payment for a claim filed but that eventually hurts your business more than the compensation paid out - what's the point of having insurance. You seem to be arguing that it would be better for a company or person found liable for injury to another to just pay for the injury instead of paying insurance premiums which would/could cause the company to go belly-up "eventually".
Click to expand...
Nope. Just arguing that insurance payouts have their own consequences as well, and aren't magic manna from heaven farted from unicorns.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The company ALSO provides life guards at all of the city's pools, which probably requires a few paid employees as well. Reading is for the mental, I mean, fundamental. Contracts put up for competitive bid do save money, that is why the city does that, rather than pay ever increasing salary and benefit packages for public employees.
Click to expand...
Usually the intent. Not always the result.
 
sharon said:
Can an employer dictate that you must stand by and watch a man drown when you have the skill and training to save him?
Click to expand...

Obviously not; yet, a company can limit their liability and responsibility. I don't get why so many people expect a private company to provide public service without compensation or right to said limitation.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Usually the intent. Not always the result.
Click to expand...

Show me ANY private, non-union, employee retirement at age 50, with 30 years service, at 50% of pay with full medical benefits. Crickets...
 
Last edited:
sharon said:
Who could ask a lifeguard NOT to rescue a person in trouble?

Can an employer dictate that you must stand by and watch a man drown when you have the skill and training to save him?

This is all about pencil pushers and "policy makers".. who cannot think on their feet..
Click to expand...

The "drowning" man was on the beach and being assisted by others, with paramedics already on the way, by the time the "hero" arrived to "help". An employer CAN dictate that you stay on YOUR beach while being paid to do so, or find another job.
 
Somerville said:
Are you really trying to say the man ran down the beach to help in a rescue simply because he 'knew' he would make more money by getting fired?


Here in South Florida, we have some nice court records concerning various county officials going to jail because of the payoffs they received for ensuring some of those "money-saving" contracts were signed.
Click to expand...

Because some politicians/gov't officials are corrupt, private employees may not be fired for leaving their job site while on duty. Now I understand.
 
My wife makes a sweet wage as part of the out source craze. It feeds the 'smaller' government mantra but it is doesn't save money. You can't hire a private company to provide services AT A PROFIT cheaper than temp city workers. These days most city workers have 401(k) retirements, not pensions. 5K of annual bennies is roughly $2.50 an hour and as a group buy with all other city employees that buys a good package.

But I see several solutions, the private firm can simply not have it's contract renewed, the lifeguard could have been suspended, fired for a day, written up and continued to work. If another guard was on duty and saw the incident he knew he now had to cover the entire area so the beach was still protected.

If enough people feel strongly enough an injustice was done then perhaps a civil protest will help correct an obvious lack of judgment on the private company's part.
 
notquiteright said:
If enough people feel strongly enough an injustice was done then perhaps a civil protest will help correct an obvious lack of judgment on the private company's part.
Click to expand...

Occupy the beach! hahaha.
 
Rules are rules. You may not agree with them and if you cannot change them then simply leave and go elswhere. Why did the deceased choose to swim 1,500 feet away from guarded beach? The huge majority of drownings are caused by stupidity......much like this one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Show me ANY private, non-union, employee retirement at age 50, with 30 years service, at 50% of pay with full medical benefits. Crickets...
Click to expand...
I know you think your "Crickets..." thing is cute and proves a point, but it would only mean what you want it to mean if you waited awhile and followed-up after a non-response. Included in the original post it is merely juvenile and presumptuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom