Lifeguard fired after saving drowning man
Tomas Lopez says he never thought getting fired would make him so popular.
But since his controversial firing Monday, the 21-year-old former lifeguard from Florida said his phone has been ringing off the hook from journalists trying to get his side of the story. He is set to make an appearance on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" on Thursday night.
"The reason I was fired is just ridiculous," Lopez told CNN late Wednesday night. "It is a ridiculous rule, really. What was I supposed to do? Just let the guy drown?"
The incident occurred Monday at Hallandale Beach in South Florida.
Orlando-based Jeff Ellis and Associates, the company Lopez worked for, said lifeguards cannot go beyond the perimeter of the beach they are responsible for overseeing.
But that day, a beachgoer rushed to Lopez's lifeguard station to alert him to a man who was drowning.
The man was some 1,500 feet outside the company's protection zone in an area where signs warn visitors to swim at their own risk, a supervisor with the company told CNN affiliate WPTV.
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 was having a lot of trouble breathing," Lopez said.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
It sounds like your fresh out of law school here. Everything, unfortunately is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If the family finds the right lawyer (and they're out there), they could bring suit, regardless if they have a case or not. Have you not heard of the case in the northeast of the woman who chose to sit by the bullpen in the little league ballpark and is suing the 13yr old who threw a ball and it hit her? She sat there AT HER OWN RISK and this case is going to court. She is SUING a 13 YEAR OLD BOY. People can bring suit for anything. The trick is hoping you get the right judge to throw it out of court...her suit has actually gotten this far. This person here, would have done the same. And in so doing, causing the lifeguard to tally up untold amounts of lawyer fees until such time a judge could throw it out. Don't be so naive. The justice system does not work the way it was intended. Too many people have learned how to twist and manipulate the system.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
No they can't. You must have a basis to establish your complaint.
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
Quoting LeifsMom04:It sounds like your fresh out of law school here. Everything, unfortunately is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If the family finds the right lawyer (and they're out there), they could bring suit, regardless if they have a case or not. Have you not heard of the case in the northeast of the woman who chose to sit by the bullpen in the little league ballpark and is suing the 13yr old who threw a ball and it hit her? She sat there AT HER OWN RISK and this case is going to court. She is SUING a 13 YEAR OLD BOY. People can bring suit for anything. The trick is hoping you get the right judge to throw it out of court...her suit has actually gotten this far. This person here, would have done the same. And in so doing, causing the lifeguard to tally up untold amounts of lawyer fees until such time a judge could throw it out. Don't be so naive. The justice system does not work the way it was intended. Too many people have learned how to twist and manipulate the system.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
No they can't. You must have a basis to establish your complaint.
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
I get the legal issues of it, and sure they had every right to fire him.
That said, I'm betting the man and his family are glad the life guard decided to say "screw the rules" and save him. If a "no save zone" stopped him from stepping in and saving this man, I don't think he would have been able to live with himself.
He put the needs of another above his own, and saved a life in doing so...it's not that common a quality sometimes.
...if people are assuming you're fresh out of law school, and you've been out for a while, this is not a good thing.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
Hahaha. Not fresh out of law school.
Quoting LeifsMom04:It sounds like your fresh out of law school here. Everything, unfortunately is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If the family finds the right lawyer (and they're out there), they could bring suit, regardless if they have a case or not. Have you not heard of the case in the northeast of the woman who chose to sit by the bullpen in the little league ballpark and is suing the 13yr old who threw a ball and it hit her? She sat there AT HER OWN RISK and this case is going to court. She is SUING a 13 YEAR OLD BOY. People can bring suit for anything. The trick is hoping you get the right judge to throw it out of court...her suit has actually gotten this far. This person here, would have done the same. And in so doing, causing the lifeguard to tally up untold amounts of lawyer fees until such time a judge could throw it out. Don't be so naive. The justice system does not work the way it was intended. Too many people have learned how to twist and manipulate the system.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
No they can't. You must have a basis to establish your complaint.
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
Good grief...
Quoting katzmeow726:...if people are assuming you're fresh out of law school, and you've been out for a while, this is not a good thing.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
Hahaha. Not fresh out of law school.
Quoting LeifsMom04:It sounds like your fresh out of law school here. Everything, unfortunately is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If the family finds the right lawyer (and they're out there), they could bring suit, regardless if they have a case or not. Have you not heard of the case in the northeast of the woman who chose to sit by the bullpen in the little league ballpark and is suing the 13yr old who threw a ball and it hit her? She sat there AT HER OWN RISK and this case is going to court. She is SUING a 13 YEAR OLD BOY. People can bring suit for anything. The trick is hoping you get the right judge to throw it out of court...her suit has actually gotten this far. This person here, would have done the same. And in so doing, causing the lifeguard to tally up untold amounts of lawyer fees until such time a judge could throw it out. Don't be so naive. The justice system does not work the way it was intended. Too many people have learned how to twist and manipulate the system.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
No they can't. You must have a basis to establish your complaint.
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
There are a lot of law suits I have thought that about...that they should have been tossed...and yet were not.
I don't think you're realizing how stupid the civil courts can be these days, and the extent to which people will go to get a free buck.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
More than one person is assuming?? People cannot sue for everything! Now, people do bring frivolous lawsuits and the attorneys get in trouble for it. Of course the law is grey, that is where it's left up to interpretation and the attorney who makes the best argument. There are always facts that are not available to the public. Based on this particular story, and based on what I've read here, the victim would not be able to sue. Does this mean an attorney wouldn't take the case and make some far fetched argument? No, but the case might not have merit and would probably get thrown out.
Good grief...
Quoting katzmeow726:...if people are assuming you're fresh out of law school, and you've been out for a while, this is not a good thing.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
Hahaha. Not fresh out of law school.
Quoting LeifsMom04:It sounds like your fresh out of law school here. Everything, unfortunately is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. If the family finds the right lawyer (and they're out there), they could bring suit, regardless if they have a case or not. Have you not heard of the case in the northeast of the woman who chose to sit by the bullpen in the little league ballpark and is suing the 13yr old who threw a ball and it hit her? She sat there AT HER OWN RISK and this case is going to court. She is SUING a 13 YEAR OLD BOY. People can bring suit for anything. The trick is hoping you get the right judge to throw it out of court...her suit has actually gotten this far. This person here, would have done the same. And in so doing, causing the lifeguard to tally up untold amounts of lawyer fees until such time a judge could throw it out. Don't be so naive. The justice system does not work the way it was intended. Too many people have learned how to twist and manipulate the system.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
No they can't. You must have a basis to establish your complaint.
Quoting .Diddles.:
You're not seeing my point here. People can sue if they want, regardless if they have a case.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
The only way the victim could have sued would be if the lifeguard attempted to rescue him and either gave up or failed. There is no suit if you chose to swim beyond the established boundaries. You swim to your peril! If the lifeguard did not rescue the victim and he drowned, his family would have no cause of action!
Quoting .Diddles.:
We live in a sue happy country. The family of the victim would have wanted to blame someone, especially if he followed the rules and denied attempting to save the victim. That has sue me written all over it.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
He would not have been sued for not rescuing the swimming. The swimmer was exceeding the scope of the lifeguard's duty. The lifeguard would only be liable if he attempted a rescue and ether gave up, or harmed the swimmer in any way--thus creating a special relationship.
Quoting .Diddles.:
My guess is he would have been sued if he told the guy he couldn't save him. So it's a catch 22 for the lifeguard. Thankfully he chose to save a life and lose a job. Even though he didn't see that coming. I'm sure he won't have problems finding a new job. Good for him!
Just what I said- moral vs. legal.
Personally, I am glad the kid took the moral road. I know plenty of attorneys who would not have LOL!
However by "forced" in terms of the company, I was speaking morally. Of course the company must abide by what their lawyers tell them.
Quoting illegallyblonde:
Because of his relationship as a lifeguard to other swimmers, he is under a duty to protect if anything happens in the "safe zone." His duty to protect does not go beyond the safe zone. Once beyond, legally he has no duty to rescue. Thats why you see signs that will tell you that you are swimming at your own risk. Once the lifeguard attempts to rescue outside the zone, he must be 100% committed to rescuing the person. So it's like leaving work or going on a detour--torts 101. The company would not be forced to rehire the guy.
It is definitely a moral vs legal choice.
Quoting Ms.KitKat:
Legally, I understand what occured here. The life guard was hired privately apparently- this was not a public employee. Although I'm still not sure if this was or was not a public beach? We don;t have such things here. all beaches are public.
Anyway- I can see the point of the private company- by rescuing a person "out of th zone" puts all others "in the zone " at greater risk. However, it comes down to morals. What are you supposed to do because a person swam out of the "zone" ? let him die?
I believe the city was backing the young life guard for rescuing the man. I do beleive the private company will be forced to re-instate the life guard.
Who would you save?
- _Kissy_
on Jul. 5, 2012 at 3:59 AM