In this case the lifeguards are clearly negligent in not properly observing the pool and not responding to requests for assistance from the patrons.
I. Facts:
1. On 11/19, at approximately 1030 PM, 15 year old As died from drowning in the pool at Central Church.
2. As was a participant in an outing sponsored by Ce Group. The outing consisted of 40 young people and seven chaperones. The Central Church pool was guarded by two individuals, Iy, age 16 and Mn, age 17.
3. The Medical examiners report indicates that As was a black male, weighing 156.5 pounds and 5′ 11.5″ tall. He wore glasses. There were no visible injuries to his body. The police report indicates that the victim was a non-swimmer and that he was dressed in black shorts with maroon stripes and was wearing a white “T” shirt. As’s glasses were found on the pool deck near the point where his body was pulled out..
4. Per the police report, Kd, a counselor with the group stated that at the time the victim was pulled from the water there were approximately 14 youngsters in the shallow end of the pool and 4 or 5 in the deep end. Sargent G of the Police Dept., in his report indicates that Bh: “…advised that she was near the diving boards and observed the victim on the bottom of the pool in the deep end…he appeared to be under a long time and when she realized he was in trouble she began to scream for someone to help the victim. She advised that Ad jumped in and pulled the victim up and the male lifeguard helped Bh get the victim out of the pool.” Sargent G also states: “Mx…advised that when he realized the victim was drowning he jumped in the pool to help save the victim. He advised that Ad pulled the victim up and the male life guard helped get the victim out of the pool.”
5. Ms. Gr was a counselor and chaperon for the program. In her statement per the police report she says that the lifeguards set up markers dividing the deep from the shallow ends of the pool. Then the guards gave instructions to the youth. As and other non swimmers walked by her and As said he was not getting into the pool because he could not swim.
6. Iy was the lifeguard on the same side of the pool as the victim. Iy was standing near the buoy line on the shallow side. Mn was the guard on the opposite side of the pool from the victim.
7. Mx states that he knew As for two years. He says that As spoke to the female guard across the pool, yelling to her that he can’t swim and could she watch him. Mx says that the guard’s reaction was by shaking her head yes. Mx didn’t notice As further. Approximately 30-45 minutes went by. Mx noticed something in the water and told the female guard. The guard told Mx he had chlorine in his eyes. Mx went to the diving board and saw As on the bottom. Mx again told the guard he sees something in the water. She again says that he has chlorine in his eyes. He then dives into the water and attempts to retrieve As’s body. Mark can not reach the bottom so he surfaces and cries help. Mx’s friend Ad then dove in and helped pull As’s body to the surface.
8. In their statements Ash, Bh and Jr corroborate Mx’s comments.
9. Iy in his deposition says he was sitting on a table for about 30 minutes, with the table located between the guard chair and the victim’s location. He states that he would have had a better view if he had been in his chair. Mn was opposite him walking around.
10. Mn was standing in an area toward the deep end free of glare. Glare was a visibility factor the higher she sat. She wears glasses. The victim was on the other side of the pool 10 to 12 yards from her. When someone standing on the diving board pointed out the victim, she was standing by her chair. She states she had no idea how the victim got into the deep end. She couldn’t see him because the victim was laying on the lane marker stripe next to the far pool side. Neither guard had more or less responsibility to watch the deep end. She could see the victim clearly (on the bottom) as she ran around the deep end. She spotted As’s glasses laying on the deck next to the flag pole around the edge of the pool. She noticed them when the medics arrived. The glasses where two feet closer to the shallow end than where the body was found on the bottom.
11. In his deposition Jr confirms his comments given in his statement, especially those corroborating Mx and his interaction with the female lifeguard.
12. A distressed non swimmer of an age and size similar to As can be expected to struggle on the surface demonstrating drowning signs and behaviors for 20 to 60 seconds.
II. Opinions:
1. There is a possibility that the victim lay on the bottom of the pool unnoticed by the lifeguards for approximately 30 minutes.
2. There is no reason per visibility in the water, for the lifeguards not to see As when he was under water. Nor was the deep end of the pool overcrowded or congested as the majority of the group in the water were non swimmers remaining in the shallow end.
3. The American Red Cross strongly recommends that guards be positioned in elevated chairs immediately positioned next to the water for best viewing swimmers and the pool. Yet, neither were in such a position.
4. Both guards were responsible for scanning the surface and the bottom of the entire pool.
5. The female guard disregarded repeated, corroborated admonitions regarding the victim’s body being seen on the bottom.
6. The victim’s wearing a white “T” shirt should have provided sufficient contrast, especially considering the considerable time he was submerged, to allow Mn’s seeing him against the background of the lane marker.
7. Failure of the 15 year old victim to either attend the pre-swim session when pool rules were presented; or to place himself in jeopardy by possibly voluntarily entering the deep end, do not excuse the guards’ inattention. They should have seen him either during his surface struggle or when he was laying for a considerable time on the pool bottom.
III. Conclusions:
1. I find the lifeguards’ egregious inattention and abysmal inability to carry out basic pool safety procedures, especially after being told repeatedly of the victim’s location, totally inexcusable.
2. The guards had a responsibility to:
A. Be alert for poor or non-swimmers entering the pool’s deep end.
B. Scan the pool to detect surface signs of distress.
C. Immediately intervene on the surface when signs of drowning were detected.
D. Repeatedly scan the bottom of the pool as well as the surface.
E. Properly and rapidly respond at the first indication that patrons have seen something amiss in the pool.
It is obvious that the guards failed to carry out any of the above primary responsibilities.
3. The lifeguards’ indifference and failure to properly perform their pool scanning/rescue duties is the primary cause of this young man’s needless and tragic death. There is absolutely no reason for this death to have occurred had the guards been performing their duties correctly.
