As lifeguards are paid and trained to do, Tomas Lopez rushed down the beach to rescue a drowning man — and then got fired for it.
The problem: Lopez stepped out of the beach zone his company is paid to patrol, a supervisor said Tuesday.
“I ran out to do the job I was trained to do,” said Lopez, 21, of Davie. “I didn’t think about it at all…”
Company officials on Tuesday said Lopez broke a rule that could’ve put beachgoers in his designated area in jeopardy. The firm could ultimately have been sued, officials said.
“We have liability issues and can’t go out of the protected area,” said supervisor Susan Ellis.
Lopez became a lifeguard four months ago after passing the company’s requirements, which include swimming and physical exams. The job pays $8.25 an hour…
Tuesday, Lopez acknowledged breaking a rule, but said he would do it again if the situation called for it…”It was the moral thing to do,” Lopez said. “I would never pick a job over my morals.”
Responsibility for corporate dollars is so much more important than anything else. Especially a human life.
first and foremost Lopez needs to be recognized as a good person,.
secondly; everyone needs to contact these corp pigs and let them know how you feel about it
survivingsurvivalism.com
Thirdly, you need to inform the public they should not sue the lifeguard company out of business.
If people didn’t sue companies, this wouldn’t be a problem.
If the kid had let someone drown in his area while he was not on duty (technically, he wasn’t since he left his area), then the company would be liable.
The kid’s a hero, no doubt.
Unfortunately, hero status doesn’t stop lawsuits.
Unfortunately nobody in his area needed aid but someone closeby did. Would the company be sued if thier lifeguard saw there was a problem but ignored it because it was out of thier zone of control. I am betting they would and I am betting they would have.
So does a corporation ever say up an night knowing they let someone die because it did not aid a person when it would not cost a cent to the bottom line? Reward the lifeguard fire that manager for all the bad prees they will get.
He didn’t see it. A person reported a problem outside the zone he was responsible for however other staff had the zone covered. The company later recanted however the lifeguards who were fired decided they didn’t want to work for the company.
I see this scenario exactly like this one,
Car crash, person injured and possibly going to die. What do you do? You stay the hell away and leave them be or risk being sue with everything you got!
Most states now have good samaritan laws which would keep you from being sued when you try to help. Your state may not be one of them. And it’s possible that some sleazebag would sue you anyway.
Yes, but remember that corporations are people but not so much on the operational part of the business. The CAP department reports to government affairs.
That is indeed the problem. I’m a member of CERT and if I help someone not part of an official operation, I receive no no protection whatsoever.
The GOVERNMENT recommends you let someone die on the side of the road and wait on EMTs due to the exposure to a lawsuit.
It’s a sad state of affairs but most people want something for free and the death of a loved one is as good an excuse as any to get it.
That’s not quite true. Many states (including mine) have Good Samaritan laws where if you hurt someone in the act of trying to save them, you are not liable.
From the corp’s point of view, not saving someone is a selling point. If you would have swam over here, you’d still be alive.
Good Samaritan Laws do not stop a law suit. All of them have a clause similar to “[…] unless the act is willfully or wantonly negligent.”
If the person wants to sue you, you are getting sued. It is going to be you proving that you weren’t negligent, not the other person proving you were. It is going to cost many, many dollars to prove it.
AFA your second paragraph, I agree.
Unfortunately, in a perfect world people wouldn’t have a reason to sue.
I wonder if this decision was made by some Human Resource grunt or top management.
Clearly, this corporate asset #77638D46 was assigned to 226.7 sq yards of beach. The flawed asset has been replaced. Measures are being taken to ensure boundary breaches will not happen again.
It should also be known that the other lifeguard on duty who said to his boss he would have done the same thing, was also fired on the spot. I think our local news said 4 other lifeguards also gave their notice when they heard what happened.
This is a good job by the company. Their insurance probably requires such an action. They should keep firing people, until they are forced to drop the contract. Let the beach go without a lifeguard if need be. Maybe that will cause people to stop the ridiculous lawsuits.
There are way too many lawyers in this country. He should have been praised in public and “punished” in private (if at all).
He didn’t get fired because of corporate “greed”. He got fired because we live in a “sue society”.
Was the company that fired him justified in firing him? Yup. Should they have? Nope.
I would think the policy would be in regards to the lifeguard getting hurt on the job. If he feels he needed to rescue someone from the water and he felt it was safe for himself to do so then there should be no problem.
If he was hurt while trying to rescue someone outside his boundaries then he is not covered. I would think they are obligated to help anyone withing eyesight and hearshot distance.
What they should do is put up a big 100′ high wall on each side, this way you would never know if someone is in need of help outside their designated area……
Shakespeare Quotes:
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers. Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78.
I was going to make a different comment, but decided to find out where this happened, since the post didn’t say.
And ta-da!
FLORIDA
Maybe now that he needs a new job, Lopez can get his fine self out of that dismal backwater!
So apparently now there’s a Beach Owners Association. And strict rules about who’s life can be saved, by BOA employed lifeguards. If some rich a-hole crashes their Bentley in your neighborhood, you can bet they expect all to come to their rescue, or at least call 911. But just don’t you drown, or get injured with eyesight of their private little fiefdom. Because they’ll just let you die! You commoner trash.
California beaches are supposed to be available to the public, all of them. So why are people like Barbra Streisand determined to block access to the becah behind their house?
I believe the price of tea in china is 8 cents a bag
I’m pretty darn liberal, and I think corporations can be abusive sometimes, but I’m on their side on this one. It’s not their fault the town cheaped out on providing lifeguard protection. They were hired to protect a specific section of the beach, and if they go save someone on the unprotected part and someone drowns on the protected part because of it, they’re in the wrong.
If the town is too cheap to pay for lifeguards along the whole beach then people are going to drown in the unprotected area. Nothing you can do about it.
This is why most countries around the world have volunteer lifeguards on public beaches. Not privatised companies with fuck you and just drown rules.
No good deed goes unpunished…
In my opinion, the manager(s) at “https://www.jellis.com/about-us.html” responsible for the firing decision should be disciplined. If the contract really is the forcing function for the firings, the government contracting authority should suffer a significant budget cut (hitum where it hurts).
Where did “https://www.jellis.com” hire these firing happy managers form anyway – Lehman Bros?
The company admitted they acted hastily, they offered him his job back, he declined.
I don’t buy any of this.
Maybe they needed an excuse to fire him other than just because he looks too Hispanic.
Yeah, maybe they hired a professional drowning victim. To fake it, just out of his specified protection zone. Sounds like a bit much to justify firing someone.
And BTW, who ratted on the guy? The other lifeguards? Does the corp. execs scrutinize the daily log, to see if everyone saved was inside the specified limits? Sounds a little fishy. The vic was within eyesight of the guard. And not too far away to swim out and save, in time. But just passed some arbitrary limit, that may not even be marked. Just a certain number of yards, either side of the lifeguard station. I’ll bet there’s no fence or sign saying, “Don’t rescue anyone past this point”. “Not even if it’s humanly possible.” Which it obviously was. So the safety patrol limit was cut short, for bureaucratic reasons. Like, two people couldn’t be rescued, at the same time, if the lifeguard was too far away rescuing one of them. Apparently the community was too cheap to pay for backup lifeguards. So they spread them as thin as possible, and imposed stupid limits.
BTW, I wish the US military operated this way. Rather than always planning to fight two major wars at once. Can’t they save the US economy a ton of money, by restricting themselves to fighting one damn war, at a time? Seems like the sky’s the limit, for military spending. The US Army saves everyone, everywhere. But don’t drown outside some fool limit. Because we can’t afford to come out after your ass. Your not a UN member nation. And no defense contractor profits from it.
Something just isn’t adding up. First of all, WHERE THE HELL IS THIS BEACH?!
Last time I looked, most public beaches that even had lifeguards employed their lifeguards through some governmental entity, usually at a county level. But I never even saw what country this was in. We might assume it’s USA but it could just as easily have been Mexico or even Israel! Anyone know?!
I’m sorry, but I can’t pass any judgment on this when I don’t even know basic details!
But from what I read, it might seem like just more absurd corporate policies so bent on the almighty buck that it ignores or endangers lives. And sure, I’m against that sort of thing. But I just can’t say one way or another without more DETAILS! because quite frankly, it seems like the journalist here may be trying to persuade us for some reason. Face it, this is a poorly reported story. (Assuming if it even happened!)
The guy was 1500 feet outside his zone. That’s 500 yards. 500 yards. Five football fields. So is there a point at which you think the guy should stay where he is? This guy went through 500 yards of shit-smelling foulness I can’t possibly imagine.
I’d vote for him… when he’s old enough!
It is very disappointing to know that Lopez got fired from his job for saving a drowning man. A person like Lopez needs to be recognized and not to be punished. I agree that human life is more essential than anything else. Thanks!