Should Hawaii Lifeguards Have Increased Protection From Liability

[Bean]

I believe that they should, simply based upon the nature of the cases that they are thrown into.  In 2002 under Act 170 the legislature agreed and since then, Hawaii lifeguards have had a greater degree of liability protection than firefighters, EMT and police.  But that could change this year.

Some more background from West Maui Today  (Surfline also has a great piece on this issue)
     
HONOLULU — Hawaii officials are looking over two bills that would either keep or end liability protection for cities and counties during drowning incidents.

Kauai, Maui and Honolulu officials held a news conference Wednesday to urge lawmakers to extend liability protections for lifeguards working at public beaches, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported (http://bit.ly/2oGUExG) . Under Hawaii law, the county, state and lifeguards have limited protection from lawsuits stemming from lifeguard rescues.

Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Scott Nishimoto moved a draft of a bill that would end that protection June 30. At the same time, another draft is moving in the Senate that would extend the protection until June 30, 2021.

Nishimoto argues that under current law, lifeguards have additional protections that other first responders such as police, firefighters and emergency medical technicians do not have. His bill would treat all first responders equally, he said.

“The current law leaves members of the public, who are injured or die because a lifeguard may have performed his or her job in an unreasonable manner, without any way to seek justice. If your loved one is hurt or dies due to negligence, would you not want the right to seek resolution?” Nishimoto wrote in a statement. “Under the current law, you have no recourse.”

Kauai County Council Chairman Mel Rapozo said without that protection, counties would be vulnerable to trial and personal injury attorneys who could gain significant revenue.

If lawmakers do not work out the differences between the bills or do nothing, the protection will end this year.

Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell has said that he will not remove any of Honolulu’s 236 lifeguards from county beaches, even if current protections end.

[stoneaxe]

My assumption is that he got a lot of political donations from ambulance chasers.

[Bean]

That's a fair assumption Stoney.

[PonoBill]

No recourse under a good samaritan law makes the most sense--guy must be a lawyer.

[Dusk Patrol]

The only reasonable basis for not extending the protection is if in fact there is an underlying problem. 
Have there been ANY instances of lifeguards "performing their job in an unreasonable manner"? If not, then most likely special interest motivation.   

[exiled]

My assumption is that he got a lot of political donations from ambulance chasers.

ding ding ding

Done in one folks.

I'm having a really hard time imagining what reasonable grounds for negligence Scott Nishimoto has in mind. Hawaii Lifeguards have a legendary reputation, and I can't think of any incident that has called that into question. Usually they try to run this kind of thing through on the back of some kind of tragedy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[photofr]

I was a lifeguard for the city & county of Honolulu - many years ago. People need to understand somethings, while in Hawaii:
- You could die, as soon as you get off your couch.
- Lifeguards in HI are fully dedicated, to, you guessed it, SAVING LIVES.
- We will risk our lives to save someone - any time, any day.
- In the end, and on some rare occasion, you could still die.

Changing the current lifeguard protection means A or B (or a combination of both)
A: People want a blanket protection, an assurance than nothing will ever happen to them - and if it does, they want to make sure their loved ones will get even more money. Get yourself a life insurance then, I don't know...?
B: High-end officials have been paid off nicely - yet again.

The fact that blows me away is actually the lack of serious lifesaving skills as well as lifesaving dedication in France. Wow, people, let me just say this: visitors (and residents alike) in Hawaii just don't know how well they got it. Perhaps they should travel to France, where nearly 95% of the lifeguards on ANY show up from mid July to mid August - and then how lax they are.

From an Hawaiian prospective, the lifeguards I have see here (referring to miles and MILES of coastline) are the closest thing to incompetent. Attacking Lifeguards in the State of Hawaii is like the saddest thing I have heard in a long time.

[Bean]

Hey PF, just a quick update, on 4/27/17 the bill passed!  But, thanks for your positive thoughts on this very important issue.

Lifeguard liability protection has been extended until June 30, 2021.

[eastbound]

this is a tough call, in my opinion--i believe that tort law is a ncessary device whereby powerful entities that act badly and cause harm to people shd be forced to pay $$$ for remedy of damages, incl ongoing expenses relating to damages.

without tort law there is no incentive for professionals to behave carefully and responsibly.

i believe that police firemen and first responders are personally exempted from liability, regardless of negligence, where their employers are not---certainly lifeguards shd not be personally liable---but i am not sure that, if there is proveable negligence that results in damage, there shd be no recourse, if the damage was caused by a lifeguard.

tough call--they put their lives on the line to save people---that's damned honorable---but if one of them behvaes poorly and soemone gets hurt, should they be exempt form liability??

what if your child is brain-dmaged due near drowning, and it's unarguable that incompetnece and carelessness on the part of a bad egg lifegurd, prevented what would have been an easy save??......and dont get me wrong, i assume that hawaii lifeguards are superb professionals who take great pride in their competence etc.........but if one behaved poorly, shd there uniquley be no recourse for the damaged party?

[Bean]

You make a great point EB.

But, one could argue that there are simply too many variables in ocean rescues to reliably predict the outcome of any single rescue in hindsight, which would naturally be necessary in a civil suit.

[hbsteve]

We can also look at it the other way.  Sometimes people put the lifeguards at risk, when they really should have stayed out of the water.   

[Zooport]

We can also look at it the other way.  Sometimes people put the lifeguards at risk, when they really should have stayed out of the water.   

Agree.  If they remove this protection, I can envision idiot tourists going out in dangerous conditions and dying, then the families suing the lifeguards and winning.  This is unacceptable. 

[eastbound]

what's sad is that likely all of these lifeguards wouldnt hesitate to put their own lives at risk to make a save--and in conditions that can and occasionally do kill even the most capable waterfolk--these lifeguards go running into that shlt--to even consider finger pointing anywhere near them, when something goes wrong, seems idiotic

and, yeah, those who put their rescuers at risk bc they dont know what theyre doing, or because theyre on some ego trip, are prolly more the problem generally

little cottonwood canyon a few seasons back--guy from "elsewhere" blows into town and starts checkboxing pretty heavy ski lines--one day, after a storm, not a single local would leave the area boundary--mr checkbox chooses to ski the steepest line on superior, a true epic, right across from the alta parking lot--well half way down he breaks his leg--his 2 partners get him down a bit--then there's some discussion of whether a heli pickup would be safe (it had started storming again)--well, they flew up there, picked mr checkbox and partners up, then proceeded to crash as they attempted to fly out of the canyon--big ego--lack of knowlege and respect==>whole lotta death

as i recall there was some criticism of the pilot also--some said he had often been pretty cowboy about risky rescues--but one thing's clear, if mr checkbox hadnt been stupid, no one would have died