4 year old dies at wave pool

[LaraK]

Shouldn't the pool take some responsibility?

If the lifeguards aren't going to ensure that lives are guarded, then why the hell are they there? To get cool tans? IMO, they aren't there to "do their best", but if someone dies...oh, well....parents should have been watching. IMO, that is shirking responsibility. Doing your best, but not getting your job done, just doesn't cut it. Especially where lives are concerned.

If it was swim-at-your-own-risk, I'd agree that accidents happen. But when you pay for the ticket, part of that cost is paying for the lifeguards.

If someone dies on your watch, you should go to prison. If there weren't enough lifeguards, management should go to prison.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Lifeguards can tip the odds in your favor, but unless they are grossly negligent (not at the side of the pool watching people), they are not to blame. They are there to help someone who gets in trouble, but are usually teenagers who are bored out of their minds (life guarding is, by far, one of the most boring jobs ever). You are not 100% guaranteed that the lifeguard is going to be able to save you if you put yourself into a position where you need to be saved. If you want a 100% guarantee, you can do one of two things, pay for one on one observation (I'm thinking we don't want the ticket prices to go up that much) or don't go into the water.

When we go to a pool, or lake, or anywhere near water, we have a one on one policy...one adult per child. We live near the water, so our kids are being taught to swim from an early age as an extra precaution, but I would never trust my four-year-old in the Bay by herself, even if she can stand up.

If the pool understaffed it's facility, or somehow gave the impression that they were watching the child one on one, or had the waves so strong that no one could stand up, there may be a liability. In this case, quite frankly, I anticipate they will settle with the family just to make it go away.

 

[MushyMushy]

It is a PARENT'S job to protect their child. The idea of giving some temporary worker the responsibility for my child's life is ridiculous.

Children run, fall and cavort in water. It is DANGEROUS, fun but dangerous. If you are the parent of a toddler it is your responsibility to watch him.

My child wore the life jackets until he was 12. They are like seatbelts and condoms... heck, who cares if they're not comfortable, they can save your life! You turn your back then you're the one who has to live with the horror, the lifeguard will go on.

No parent should bury a child.. I have and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. It's why I'm so vigilant, I know the pain TOO well. They are only within your grasp for a few years, take the responsibility to make sure they're safe.

Sorry, this kind of stuff gets to me...

I totally agree. Even when my DD and I were at Typhoon Lagoon, I was really nervous about her being out of my sight in the wave pool!

 

[mamacatnv]

The lifeguards ought to be scrutinized. Their job is to make sure little kids don't die and a little kid died.

I would not have allowed a kid in there if I wasn't watching. But I know that - like with all jobs - some lifeguards suck. In no way would I trust my kid's life to them.

But, some people trust the lifeguards. And it is their flippin job. I've often thought there should be cameras at these pools and the film should be reviewed when something like this happens. If the lifeguard who was assigned to that part of the pool was talking or adjusting their suit or putting on sunscreen or zoning out, they should be put in jail.

It is entirely possible that this woman had to change her other child's diaper or something and figured she could trust the lifeguards for a few minutes. I've seen LOTS of people - good parents - do that. Happens at Disney all the time. Hell, I fished a drowning kid out of a pool at CSR.

I never made my kids wear lifejackets in the pool because it isn't fun and you can't swim with those things on. But, I watched them.

My heart breaks for that mother. Not only has she lost her child and has to live through that, but now people will be blaming her for it.

I'm sorry, as the mother of a water park Life Guard I think you are a little misinformed. First of all they are Life Guards not babysitters. It is the parents responsibility to babysit, it is the Life Guards job to do everything possible to prevent harm, however, they are not assigned to an unattended child on a 1 to 1 basis. They do have an area to scan, but their eyes cannot be everywhere every minute, hence the need for parental supervision.

The idea of putting an often teenage Life Guard in jail because a parent has neglected their responsibilties is IMO a typical response from a person who does not assume responsibility for their actions or those of their children. Changing a diaper or whatever is no reason to ever not supervise a child around water, I don't care who is in attendance.

The Life Guards I know (and I know a lot of them) take their job very seriously, and an event of this magnitude would be devastating to them. My son gets upset when a person is injured on a slide, and there was nothing he could have done, but he still feels bad. To assue that they are working on their tan, socializing or adjusting their suit is an uneducated assumption.

Life vests are designed for a reason. Oh well they are not the most comfortable thing in the world, so what! If a kid is not competent in the water and a parent chooses to leave them unsupervised then the parent should assume the consequences of not putting the vest on them that would have most likely prevented this tragedy.

I feel bad for the parent of the lost child, but to place the blame on anyone else but the parent is not right. IMO

 

[RitaZ.]

What a tragic loss.

Those wave pools make me nervous. My kids all know how to swim and even then, I get nervous. Those waves can be quite powerful.

ETA~ When we went to TL, the lifeguards surrounding the wave pool were very, very attentive. However, there is no way they can keep an eye on every single person in that pool. They are wayyyyyy outnumbered.

 

[poohandwendy]

I think people place way too high of expectations on pool lifeguards. They are a line of defense, not a guarantee.

IMO, there is no reason for any parent to leave their small child unattended at ANY pool, ever. Not even for a few minutes.

A life guard is trained to help a swimmer in trouble. Allowing a 4 yo the opportunity to get into trouble in the water, in the first place, is a HUGE mistake. Because help is then very often too little, too late. Not every person who goes under can be revived. Even just seconds can mean death.

The responsibility is on the parents. If they can prove that the life guard ignored signs of trouble, that would be negligent. But to think that a drowning is automatically the result of their negligence is ridiculous, IMO. They are not trained to be magicians, they are trained to be an extra pair of eyes on a whole lot of people, not the only pair of eyes on each individual child.

 

[lillygator]

what a sad sad loss....


I would never put all my faith in the lifeguards to watch over my kids....and I wouldn't put them at fault either. I grew up going to Wet and Wild and the wave pool is really quite strong. I can't tell you how many times I would be pulled under and be physically underneath someone and there would be no way for the lifeguard to see or know it the wave pool was always soooo crowded in the summer.

personally I think it's pretty negligent to let a 4 year old go out in a wave pool (and not be watching them) even if they can swim, that is still pretty darn young.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I'm sorry, as the mother of a water park Life Guard I think you are a little misinformed. First of all they are Life Guards not babysitters. It is the parents responsibility to babysit, it is the Life Guards job to do everything possible to prevent harm, however, they are not assigned to an unattended child on a 1 to 1 basis. They do have an area to scan, but their eyes cannot be everywhere every minute, hence the need for parental supervision.

The idea of putting an often teenage Life Guard in jail because a parent has neglected their responsibilties is IMO a typical response from a person who does not assume responsibility for their actions or those of their children. Changing a diaper or whatever is no reason to ever not supervise a child around water, I don't care who is in attendance.

The Life Guards I know (and I know a lot of them) take their job very seriously, and an event of this magnitude would be devastating to them. My son gets upset when a person is injured on a slide, and there was nothing he could have done, but he still feels bad. To assue that they are working on their tan, socializing or adjusting their suit is an uneducated assumption.

Life vests are designed for a reason. Oh well they are not the most comfortable thing in the world, so what! If a kid is not competent in the water and a parent chooses to leave them unsupervised then the parent should assume the consequences of not putting the vest on them that would have most likely prevented this tragedy.

I feel bad for the parent of the lost child, but to place the blame on anyone else but the parent is not right. IMO

I've lifeguarded, so you can stop telling me about the job and how no lifeguards suck.

If your child takes money in the name of saving lives, but is unable to perform that task, they should go to jail. If they can't guard the life - for whatever reason - they should stop taking the money. That's personal responsibility.

Like I said, it is really hard to know what happened. But if the lifeguard was screwing around and not constantly scanning their area, they should go to jail. That's my opinion and I stick by it. They aren't there to chit-chat, put on lotion, etc.

I'll just say it one last time. If the lifeguards can't guard the lives, they should get rid of them and have swim-at-your-own-risk.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Like I said, it is really hard to know what happened. But if the lifeguard was screwing around and not constantly scanning their area, they should go to jail. That's my opinion and I stick by it. They aren't there to chit-chat, put on lotion, etc.

Bolding added by me.

What if the lifeguard was doing their job and being extremely vigilant?

 

[poohandwendy]

If the lifeguards can't guard the lives, they should get rid of them and have swim-at-your-own-risk.

Swimming is always at your own risk, even with the most highly trained and diligent life guards. You can sue, you can blame...but it does not change the fact that going to the pool can result in a drowning. No one can be trained to guarantee your safety, it's impossible. And especially unrealistic to think that 4-6 trained people can absolutely guarantee the safety of hundreds of people at a pool.

As long as there are parents who think that lifeguard= guaranteed protection as an absolute, there will be children unattended at pools and some of them will die.

 

[Cool-Beans]

Bolding added by me.

What if the lifeguard was doing their job and being extremely vigilant?

Then they don't go to jail.

Swimming is always at your own risk, even with the most highly trained and diligent life guards. No one can be trained to guarantee your safety, it's impossible. And especially unrealistic to think that 4-6 trained people can absolutely guarantee the safety of hundreds of people at a pool.

As long as there are parents who think that lifeguard= guaranteed protection as an absolute, there will be children unattended at pools and some of them will die.

LOL, "life" is at your own risk. But pools make a distinction between those with people guarding lives and those that don't.

If swimming is always at your own risk, then - like I said - they should get rid of the lifeguards and not charge people for this service.

 

[EthansMom]

When we go to a pool, or lake, or anywhere near water, we have a one on one policy...one adult per child. We live near the water, so our kids are being taught to swim from an early age as an extra precaution, but I would never trust my four-year-old in the Bay by herself, even if she can stand up.

This is our policy, also. Our kids take swim lessons and DS5.5 is an excellent swimmer. But we have a one adult per child policy and we keep our attention on the child we have with us. At the beach, this often means that DH and DS5.5 go off and snorkel while DD3 and I go wading and make sand castles. Sure, I would love to spend some time at the beach reading, but I'm on-duty (parenting).

Wave pools have such strong currents that children should not be in the pool without a life vest AND a parent. I feel sorry for the parents of the boy, but unless there was some kind of negligence on the part of the life guards, there shouldn't be a lawsuit. Life guards are neither babysitters nor miracle workers.

 

[RitaZ.]

I've lifeguarded.

At a wave pool?

 

[meandtheguys2]

But if the lifeguard was screwing around and not constantly scanning their area, they should go to jail.

So, does the parent deserve the same fate for not doing their job?

 

[Beth76]

Cool Beans, have you ever been to a wave pool? Actually swam in one? They are packed with people, bobbing up in down in the water. The waves are huge and can know you down. There is NO WAY a lifeguard can watch every single person and determine if each person is safe or not. As a parent, NEVER would I hold a teenager--that I don't know and does not know my child--responsible for the safety of my child. Now I'm not going to automatically blame the parents because maybe they were right there and the child got away from them for a moment. But I sure as heck am not going to put the blame on the lifeguards over the parents.

 

[poohandwendy]

Then they don't go to jail.

If swimming is always at your own risk, then - like I said - they should get rid of the lifeguards and not charge people for this service.

If the pool admission charge came with a guarantee of safety, no one would be able to afford it. Have you ever seen any sign at a pool that said "You are absolutely guaranteed not to drown in this pool, because we have trained life guards"? They are not paid to guarantee safety, they are paid to be a line of defense.

Doctors are paid to save lives and simply cannot save them all. As are police, EMTs, etc. Sometimes people die, even when there is someone paid to try to prevent it.

 

[cardaway]

Get rid of all the lifeguards because one person was not saved?

Unless it is found they they were not doing their job, I don't see any case against the park here.

And yes, this opinion is from yet another trained life guard. I've had my share of saves (including my own sister), but not all of them were somebody I personally saw myself from outside the pool. You can't see everybody, especially not those that have already went under.

 

[Bob Slydell]

If swimming is always at your own risk, then - like I said - they should get rid of the lifeguards and not charge people for this service.

I'm not a water park owner, but I have to imagine that lifeguard salaries are not a very large chunk of a park's expense.

 

[mamacatnv]

I've lifeguarded, so you can stop telling me about the job and how no lifeguards suck.

If your child takes money in the name of saving lives, but is unable to perform that task, they should go to jail. If they can't guard the life - for whatever reason - they should stop taking the money. That's personal responsibility.

Like I said, it is really hard to know what happened. But if the lifeguard was screwing around and not constantly scanning their area, they should go to jail. That's my opinion and I stick by it. They aren't there to chit-chat, put on lotion, etc.

I'll just say it one last time. If the lifeguards can't guard the lives, they should get rid of them and have swim-at-your-own-risk.

Seeing as how your opinion is in the minority, I think we should agree to disagree and leave it at that, I don't see how arguing the point is going to solve anything.

A terrible tragedy and loss for a family.

 

[Robinrs]

If the pool admission charge came with a guarantee of safety, no one would be able to afford it. Have you ever seen any sign at a pool that said "You are absolutely guaranteed not to drown in this pool, because we have trained life guards"? They are not paid to guarantee safety, they are paid to be a line of defense.

Doctors are paid to save lives and simply cannot save them all. As are police, EMTs, etc. Sometimes people die, even when there is someone paid to try to prevent it.

Also, bringing a small child to a wave pool is a choice, not required. If you choose to use this as a form of entertainment then you must be prepared to take the added responsibility.

Personally, I don't think any person who makes it to adulthood without going to a "wave pool" is deprived... It's a choice.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Unless it is found they they were not doing their job, I don't see any case against the park here.

I would argue that if it's somehow determined that the staffing at the pool at the time of the incident was at less than a "safe" level, then there might be a case against the park.

In the OP, it was mentioned that the parents of the child was claiming that there were fewer than normal lifeguards on duty at that time. I would be surprised if the park would operate a wave pool with less guards than what's mandated, since that would automatically open them up for lawsuits, but who knows what they might have done.