Lifeguard Fired for Trying to Save Man Outside of His Zone

The only way this story could be worse is if someone drowned because the lifeguard did follow orders and ignored people drowning outside his "zone." I agree!

The only way this story could be worse is if someone drowned because the lifeguard did follow orders and ignored people drowning outside his "zone."

Hopefully some places will be eager to hire him to replace lazy and irresponsible guards.

Luckily no one got hurt in this situation. But had he not responded and the man drowned, that would be an even worse situation. Even if JE&A said he did the "right" thing not leaving his post, the kid has to live with that for the rest of his life. That's an important consideration which I think the employer may have not considered when developing its rules for its lifeguards. I would have classified all the lifeguards I saw on the TV report as "kids". I don't think any of them were more than 20 years old.

I was also an Ellis certified lifeguard for 5-6 years when I was younger, and one thing we were taught is that you NEVER leave your assigned area. Coverage for the areas under lifeguard authority absolutely requires that the guard in each area maintain oversight in that specific place. This is what allows the aquatic area to remain protected as a whole. If a guard needs to jump in for a save, the long whistle blow signifies that help is needed, and there should be several additional guards who are able to be in the area within 15-20 seconds (could be longer at a very large beach). In my opinion, there should have been a long whistle blow, and he should have waited until there was a guard who could assist in his area before travelling 500 yards for a save. It sounds harsh, but the man WAS swimming in an unsupervised area... I certainly understand the instinct to help, but truly the guard should not have left his post until there was coverage for his area. The safety of the entire aquatic area was likely compromised as a result of his actions. This is ESPECIALLY true in open water environments, which are notorious for being difficult to guard because of the lack of clarity/darkness/uniformity of the water. I would guess that this is why he was ultimately fired, as it is a huge liability risk for the city/county that operates the beach. Was firing him overly harsh? Probably. Will another guard ever leave their post again at this beach? Probably not.

I used to train Ellis lifeguards, zones have overlapping areas of coverage in a pool environment, not sure about open ocean. I do know in Volusia County FL (Daytona Beach area), guards work alone from guard stands set approximately 50 yards apart. In pools when a rescue is being affected, the pool is cleared so all guards can assist with the situation. Yes, I used to have a Jeff Ellis and Assoc. certification for lifeguarding as well as the Red Cross. JE&A has a much more thorough, specific, and comprehensive program than Red Cross and I believe holds guards to a higher standard. It may have also been my employer too, but this was for an outdoor lap pool. There were daily skills and knowledge audits and required weekly continuing education. First of all, I'm surprised they didn't have overlapping coverage/two guards to monitor. It seems like the lifeguard should have be able to notify other guards to cover his zone. I think they're probably saying the appropriate course of action would have been to clear the water and then leave if he could not adequately occupy his area of the water. I definitely think it is ridiculous that he would lose his job over this. In the heat of a catastrophe react faster than they think. I've seen kids start to drown and it's scary experience. Everyone is looking to you to help or you're the only one that notices. I would see this as a learning opportunity for them to clarify what the best course of action would have been. And maybe they were trying to look for a reason to get rid of him / he's had issues in the past following instructions? Luckily no one got hurt in this situation. But had he not responded and the man drowned, that would be an even worse situation. Even if JE&A said he did the "right" thing not leaving his post, the kid would have to live with that man's death for the rest of his life.

So the lifeguard does what lifeguards are taught to do: go to the aid of a drowning person. If it's outside his "zone," what happens if a swimmer originally in his zone is pulled out by a current and can't return to the zone? Is this an executable offense?

And what about the guard of the zone in which this incident occured? Where was he??? :dunno:

According to the CNN report he (instead of fellow beachgoers) was the one that did actually pull the man out of water: "Even though he knew it was outside the company protection zone, Lopez ran into the ocean toward the struggling man and pulled him ashore. The man, he said, had turned blue." "he has been offered his job back. But Tomas Lopez told CNN he does not plan to return to work." Even if he broke the rule by leaving his zone and actually saving someone's life, I would think the most the employer should do was to give him a warning, but by no means firing him, even if they did't want to praise him for the lifesaving deed. It would be different if during that time another person in his zone drowned.

The news reports are woefully incomplete of course. I could imagine the implication of the stories taht the company was out of line for firing the guard, could be exactly right. On the other hand - suppose the guy went running down the beach to be a hero, when he should have picked up the phone? What if there was another lifeguard closer?