When two girls spent five minutes trying to persuade a lifeguard that a swimmer was on the bottom of the pool
What happened?
A lifeguard had recently passed his lifesaving qualification, had just eight days experience in the job, and was working at a busy outdoor pool with multiple features in the middle of summer.
A sixteen year-old boy who suffered from epilepsy got into difficulty when suffering from a fit, jumping into the water but not resurfacing. The inexperienced lifeguard was the nearest to the incident.
The lifeguard was told by three girls that somebody was unconscious at the bottom of the pool, but he told the girls the shape was just a pipe to produce bubbles and ignored their pleas for help. Two of the girls who raised the alarm said at the inquest that they spent five minutes trying to persuade the lifeguard to take action.
It was only when a fourth girl dived down and managed to raise the boy’s arm above the surface that action was taken, when another lifeguard realised something was wrong and jumped into the water.
The boy was dragged out but died the following day in hospital.
Legal Outcome
At the inquest, the coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death but said the student’s life might have been saved if the lifeguard had reacted quicker, saying, ‘it has to be said he was inexperienced. His actions on the day should have been different.’
The lifeguard declined to give evidence at the inquest after taking legal advice, but said in a statement he had not been able to see clearly because a wave machine had made the water cloudy.
The council responsible for the pool was later fined £12,000 for breaking health and safety rules, and was also ordered to pay the £8,011 costs. The former lifeguard was also fined £500 by magistrates at Scarborough in connection with the tragedy.
What can we learn from what happened?
It would not be appropriate to assume too much about how this tragic incident unfolded, and therefore not appropriate to comment, but the following is based on fact.
Firstly, the council did make some immediate changes to their operating procedures, namely switching off the bubble machine, a reduction in the number of people allowed into the attraction and an increase in the number of lifeguards on duty. So this indicates that the risk factors presented by the pool were too great in relation to the controls.
Secondly, it is a reminder that individual lifeguards can be prosecuted, and while the £500 is not significant, the impact on the lifeguard’s life should not be underestimated.
Thirdly, the lifeguard was inexperienced. Whether this was a factor I do not know, but how operators ensure lifeguarding competence when so few hours have been worked is a major challenge.
The pool in question is now closed, and has been dismantled.
Source of Information
BBC News Online