Swimming Pool Drowning in Front of Nine Lifeguards Leads to $10 Million Jury Verdict

Swimming Pool Drowning in Front of Nine Lifeguards Leads to $10 Million Jury Verdict

Posted by Jesse Guerra on December 22, 2011

In the midst of the holidays and the cold that grips large parts of the country, it is often difficult to think about the prime swimming season.  It is unlikely that many residents of Chicago, New York, or other northern cities are thinking about swimming in outdoor pools that are closed or lakes that are frozen over.   However, our swimming pool accident lawyer knows that swimming takes place each and every day in various parts of the country in both indoor and outdoor pools.  That is why it remains important to share reminders about the importance of safe swimming and maintenance throughout the year.
For example, North Jersey News recently reported on a jury verdict that was handed down in a swimming pool case involving a13-year old boy who drowned in the summer of 2008.  The boy, Soo Hyeon Park, was visiting the city of Ridgewood from South Korea and the family was using the public Graydon Pool.  There were nine lifeguards in the stands around the pool on the day that the accident took place.  However, when the young child began to struggle staying afloat, not one of those guards noticed.  The boy was underwater for a considerable period of time before a family friend noticed him and attempted a rescue.  The friend told the mother of the problem who then alerted the lifeguards.  Tragically, even then, the pool manager only ordered the guards to search for the boy around the pool, instead of actually sending them inside the pool.  It wasn’t until 40 minutes later that the boy was actually pulled from the water.  The family eventually filed a swimming pool lawsuit alleging negligent supervision of the pool and inadequate lifeguard response.  Late last month the jury agreed with the family and awarded them the verdict.
As the family’s swimming pool drowning attorney noted, “there were actually lifeguards who were searching the parking lot.  They should have seen this child as he was drowning.  They should have gone in and saved him.  That’s what lifeguards do.”
This is a sad reminder that the mere presence of lifeguards are of little value to swimmers if those guards do not act appropriately to help those in danger.  In fact, inadequate lifeguards may actually be worse than no lifeguards at all.  This is because many onlookers provide less oversight than they normally would under the assumption that lifeguards are around to help in case something happens.
As our national drowning lawyer at the J. Guerra Law Firm has explained to various audiences, it remains essential for all lifeguards to be properly trained and follow basic rules while on duty.  For one thing, they must be mentally fresh.  Studies have found that it is almost impossible to effectively scan a pool effectively for more than 30 minutes at a time.  Lifeguards needs 5 or 10 minute “reset” breaks between each of those sessions to ensure that they are actually capable of spotting a struggling swimmer while observing the pool.  Tired eyes on lifeguards render them ineffective.
Similarly, it is important for guards to be rotated, because studies show that staying in the same place for too long decreases attention span.  Considering the need for proper rest, it is therefore important that there be enough staff members on duty at a pool so that no single guard is forced to work more than possible at maximum effectiveness.  Failure to account for these known risk factors may be an example of negligent pool supervision.