Legal Principle Duty to Act Lifeguard
The evidence in the case completely contradicted the coach`s selfish proclamations and defensive tactics, including several county staff members and students who said the coach was on duty in the pool when Alex drowned. A duty of care is a duty to avoid foreseeable harm to others if it is reasonable. Most people have a very general duty of care to act reasonably to avoid harming others. If a rescuer is not properly trained or certified, this can be taken into account when determining negligence and can lead to “negligence in itself”, which simply means that a violation of the law is automatically considered negligence. Example: Claire brought her 6-year-old son, Jack, to the local community pool. A lifeguard is on duty, but has spent more time talking to his girlfriend than watching the swimmers. Jack falls to the bottom, but is not a good swimmer, so he starts drowning. The rescuer can`t see and Jack drowns. Therefore, a personal injury lawsuit can be filed against the lifeguard and the community pool.
Along with the letter, we attached the video we had prepared in the case, as discussed above, as well as the statements of the student rescuers showing the deputies how glaring the facts of the case were and how and why the tragedy was so preventable. She agreed to meet with us and appreciated the evidence we shared with her. From this meeting was born Alex`s law. We worked hand-in-hand with the legislator and Alex`s family to ensure the bill passed through the legislature and on Governor Newsom`s desk for signature. Lifeguards who fail to act when swimmers are in danger negligently endanger people and may be held liable for their failure to help. Just because a lifeguard is present doesn`t mean people swim in safe waters. Serious accidents when lifeguards are on duty are all too frequent. This obligation has been repeated since the adoption of the doctrine of primary risk-taking.
(See Jimenez, above, 247 Cal.App.4th at 603.) Drowning is preventable if trained lifeguards perform their duties. When swimmers are in trouble, rescuers have a duty to act, including rescuing the swimmer from danger and performing CPR and other first aid services, until medical personnel arrive on site. When lifeguards are properly trained to do their duty, drowning rates drop dramatically. Depending on the state in which the lifeguard works, they may need to undergo specific training or meet certain certification requirements. Most states and local governments require lifeguards to have some form of certification that shows they are knowledgeable and trained to protect people from the potential risks of swimming. Lifeguards can often receive this training through groups such as the YMCA or the American Red Cross. 12 The duty to supervise should be even stricter for young teenagers like Alex. A major role of supervisors is to anticipate and curb thoughtless student behaviour in order to prevent injury caused by the deliberate or reckless behaviour of the victim or a classmate, and failure to do so constitutes negligence. (Ibid.) Before we discuss the specific evidence we eventually uncovered that helped us prevail in this case, we think a brief overview of California`s drowning law would be helpful.
During the litigation, the defendants, instead of assuming responsibility or showing remorse for young Alex`s drowning death, argued that they were not required to save Alex and that the plaintiffs` allegation of negligent hiring, retention, supervision and training was unfounded. Similarly, the “Good Samaritan doctrine” does not apply to those who have created or increased the risk of danger. (Ed. at 1010-11.) Here, the rescuer caused the danger and/or increased the risk of Alex being injured as described above. The “Good Samaritan doctrine” does not apply to the actions of the rescuer, as he was responsible for creating or increasing risk. In addition, “a person who undertakes to provide to another person such services as he considers necessary for the protection of a third party or his property is liable to the third party for bodily injury resulting from his failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of his obligation if: (a) he has not exercised due diligence; increases the risk of such damage, or (b) he has undertaken to perform an obligation owed by the other party to the third party, or (c) the damage results from the other person`s confidence in the enterprise. (Artiglio v. Corning, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 613.) Some pools may require you to sign a liability waiver. Warnings provide a strong defence to a personal injury claim.
