Legal Implications of Providing Lifeguard Protection

The decision to provide lifeguard protection can be influenced by civil liability laws, which may hold the owners of aquatic areas and the lifeguards they employ responsible for fatal and nonfatal injuries.

One aspect of liability involves malfeasance. In most states, lifeguards, like other safety providers, are expected to act within a standard of care set by their training, local protocols, and past court rulings. A variation from the standard of care may result in liability. Another aspect of liability involves the condition of the facility and the quality of warning or protection provided. Some laws absolve federal, state, or local governments of liability for injuries resulting from natural conditions, such as currents and surf action. In California, for example, local governments are immune from injuries sustained at beaches as a result of natural conditions, regardless of the presence or absence of lifeguards or warning signs. This approach neither discourages nor encourages the placement of lifeguards.

Some state laws hold governments liable for natural conditions under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court of Hawaii (Kaczmarczyk vs. City and County of Honolulu, 1982) has determined that while a municipality is not an insurer of the safety of those using public beaches and adjacent waters, governments must exercise reasonable care in maintaining these facilities and in supervising their use by the public.

The court has found that the municipality has a duty to warn of extremely dangerous conditions known to the municipality which would not be obvious to an ordinary person. One method of warning is the placement of signs, and Hawaii is assessing the adequacy of warning by signage.

In Florida, municipalities have discretionary authority to operate a designated swimming area at a beach, but once they decide to operate a swimming facility, they assume a common law duty to operate it safely. In determining liability for drownings, Florida courts look for a previous knowledge of the danger, the presence of lifeguards, and the adequacy of warnings. Generally, a private Florida landowner, such as a hotel owner, has no duty to post lifeguards on public beaches or warn guests of hazardous ocean conditions. If, however, the hotel designates the beach as a swimming area, it incurs a duty to provide adequate warnings and safety precautions. Even if an area is not designated as a swimming area, a duty still may be placed on the landowner to operate the area safely through local ordinances or contractual agreements with beach vendors.

Liability definitions categorize swimming pools into those open to the public, those accessible by fee, and those provided by hotels. For public pools, some states and local jurisdictions specifically define the required level of lifeguard protection. In other areas, the level of protection may be left to the pool owner, but in the case of an incident, assessing the quality of protection may be a matter of what is considered reasonable by a judge or jury. In most states, hotels must simply post signs with approved or commonly accepted language. This passive approach to water safety may limit liability, but it also limits injury prevention. It is clear that lifeguards can significantly reduce the incidence of water-related injury and death. Therefore, laws which encourage placement of lifeguards, although more expensive, can logically be expected to enhance public safety.