Toddler drowns at health club pool - apportioning blame ?

[thetideishigh]

This article really resonated with me on a couple of levels

metro.co.uk/2020/02/11/dad-boy-3-drowned-david-lloyd-pool-says-death-prevented-12218854/.

When my kids were little I insisted that any swimming trips involved 2 adults as I'm not a strong swimmer myself and my dh was lax in his alertness to danger when in sole charge of just two kids ("daddy daycare" was responsible for ALL of our trips to A & E for the kids up to the age of 7).

One of my dc qualified and worked (only part time) as a lifeguard from the age of 16 + 1/2. They were a very serious/responsible child, with the maturity of someone much older according to their teachers and other independent adult observations.

Their younger sibling now also wants to train as a lifeguard so that they can earn a little extra money. They are fairly mature for their age so I was inclined to say yes to funding the training until I read the linked article.

It's set me wondering whether 16/17 year olds are too young for lifeguarding (although my dc is currently more responsible in their attitude to life stuff than a great many 18-21 year olds I know.

I also wonder how the dad came to lose sight of the 3 year old for long enough for him to wander off and fall in to the main pool. I never relaxed at the pool with the kids until they were better swimmers than me. I was a constant personal lifeguard to them on such trips but mostly because of my fears, not because of their behaviour.

What do people think ?

David Lloyd is one of the few private health clubs that still allow children under 12 under the supervision of their parents. They are very clear in all signage / literature that parents must be responsible for their children at all times. This is a tragedy yes but entirely preventable - the father should have kept hold of the child at all times. Too many parents treat swimming pools like a playground.

Knitwit99 the lifeguard didn't notice. If lifeguards could notice everything, there wouldn't be any need for adult supervision.

The father seems to think this was due to the lifeguard visibility at the pool area, not the failings of the individual lifeguard.

Sadly accidents do happen despite everyone's best efforts. You can reduce the chances but you are still going to have tragic deaths.
Even the most experienced lifeguards might miss someone.
Even the best parents might let their guard down.
Even the best doctors might not recognise an illness or be able to save someone.

the lifeguard didn't notice. If lifeguards could notice everything, there wouldn't be any need for adult supervision

I know, that was really unfair of me. I think that was more what I would have been thinking if I had been the lifeguard on duty because I would feel like I should have noticed a kid by himself on the poolside and would have felt guilty as hell that I didn't notice.

A little 2 yr old did end up in our pool unsupervised once, his dad had stopped to chat to someone. But luckily my colleague noticed him running out of the changing room by himself and we got him out quickly, no harm done. But that could have ended differently and I still think about it.

This is so sad.

"A little 2 yr old did end up in our pool unsupervised once, his dad had stopped to chat to someone."

It's often the dad, isn't it.
Anecdotally I've heard a lot more about accidents when dads are supposed to be supervising, rather than mums.
I wonder if there are stats on it.

what a sad story.

The only way to be with small children near water is eyes or hands on ALL THE TIME. It only takes a couple of seconds for a kid to trip or fall in. The child was 3 so no sense of danger. With so much water around he should have been hand-held or on reins.

You cannot chat, you cannot play with your phone, you cannot stop looking and counting heads.

the lifeguard was not responsible unless he was told 'keep an eye on this kid', which he wasn't and would not have accepted.

I'm afraid the responsibility is with the supervising adult. Who needs no further punishment of course. If he wants action, the club should not admit any more young children.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-51536308?ocid=wsnews.chat-apps.in-app-msg.whatsapp.trial.link1_.auin

The article is very clear that it's David Lloyd Leisure that is facing prosecution, not the life guard.

So awful.

I think it's a very sad story but absolutely don't agree that the leisure centre should be prosecuted, the blame in this case lies with the father and it's something he will have to carry for the rest of his life.

We have a pool at home, if my children drown in there I have no one else to blame but myself. We do absolutely everything in our power to keep them safe and hand on heart I can say that in all the times I have been swimming with them, my eyes have never momentarily shifted from them - water is so so dangerous.

I'm not sure I ever would take two littlies swimming by myself, but I certainly wouldn't be relying on poolside lifeguards to top up my parenting if I didn't think I could cope with two by myself.

The same David Lloyd venue nearly drowned my child 14 years ago.

He was signed up for the half term club. There was a section on the form for Can Swim and Cannot Swim, so they have them float jackets and kept them in the shallow end. Obviously I completed it with Cannot Swim and was assured that’s no problem, they have loads of supervised water stuff he could do for that part of the morning.

The staff running the activities didn’t check the list when taking the kids to the pool. “Who wants to jump in the deep end?”
Of course the 5yo says ME!. They let him, another child grabbed his pool noodle during play, my son went under. Was rescued before a fatality but long enough for serious distress and water inhalation. He wouldn’t enter a pool again for 3 years.

"Outside the coroner's court, Natalie Marrison - representing Catharine and Steven Wright - said Rocco's parents supported Leeds City Council's investigation and planned prosecution".

It would be wrong to prosecute a parent for their lapse of concentration leading to their child's death as most people would agree the dreadful punishment of having lost their child is sufficient. Just because it's not logical to prosecute them however, is it right to look to prosecute the leisure centre they were using ?

It looks like deflecting blame from the parent to ease their conscience, unless further investigation concludes visibility problems for the lifeguarding staff. Who advises a leisure centre on visibility ranges etc ? Surely the leisure centre then pass the blame onto whoever advised them in this respect ?

I hope that in their grief for Rocco, the parents aren't forgetting the mental trauma no doubt still being suffered by the 17 y.o. lifeguard. A trauma that wouldn't have happened if the parent had followed safety guidance concerning small children around deep water.

Presumably the council has found significant failings if it plans to prosecute. A big company like DL shouldn't be scrimping on safety or breaching health and safety legislation, so if they have, it's only right they are prosecuted for it surely? Regardless of who was to 'blame' for the child wandering off in the first place. Or do DL get a free pass to breach health and safety legislation for some reason?

'Leeds City Council’s Health and Safety Inspectors have investigated the circumstances of Rocco’s death and believe that David Lloyd Leisure Ltd have committed offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which we intend to prosecute in the near future.'

Why shouldn't they prosecute if the law has been broken? Surely that's the point of it.

I hope that in their grief for Rocco, the parents aren't forgetting the mental trauma no doubt still being suffered by the 17 y.o. lifeguard. A trauma that wouldn't have happened if the parent had followed safety guidance concerning small children around deep water.

The lifeguard may have a claim for damages for trauma/stress/distress if DL are found to have been negligent. I would hope they are being advised appropriately.

They all franchisees ?

Very true @DesLynamsMoustache and @ProfessorSlocombe

I've been following this story in the news quite closely.

A couple of points to note.

a) the inquest into the child's death has already been conducted and the verdict was accidental death

b) Leeds City Council have specifically stated that they believe that there was a breach of Health and Safety Law and that is would they intend to bring prosecution against David Lloyd for. A breach of Health and Safety Law can amount to a number of things but Leeds City Council must be fairly certain that there was a fundamental 'rule being broken' for them to have worded it like this. In this case it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the prosecution would point towards the lifeguard. It is more likely to point towards a systemic failure of David Lloyd to provide the adequate number of life-guards/equipment, conditions, to have permitted too many people into the pools, to have provided inadequate training etc. etc.

c) In other reports about the incident the father is quoted as saying that they will definitely be pushing for additional laws and guidance on the area of lifeguarding and pools etc. to avoid anything like this happening to another family. This suggests to me that the family are not pushing for prosecution of any individual but what to find the underlying cause and make sure it is fixed.

Personally I think it is a tragic accident and that no blame shoulw be apportioned to an individual. However, if blame MUST be apportioned then it sadly falls with the father who lost sight of his son for a bit too long but that can happen to any parent. it's very tragic.

Oh additionally it will be intersting to see the prosecution of David Lloyd unfold, as they were prosecuted in 2016 for an incident in which a young child nearly drowned. In that case it was found that staff had allowed a small non-swimming child to participate in a holiday fun session without armbands and that the staff were or should have been aware that the child could not swim. DL were fined £330,000 in that case. under the section of the H&S Act which demands due diligence and that everything which is "reasonably praticable" is done to ensure the safety of people.

It is similar but different to this case so I would be interested to see the case put forward by LCC against them.

c) In other reports about the incident the father is quoted as saying that they will definitely be pushing for additional laws and guidance on the area of lifeguarding and pools etc. to avoid anything like this happening to another family.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I am going to suggest that the existing regulations and guidance are completely adequate when followed as intended. No amount of new guidance or regulation is going to make the blindest bit of difference if companies can make a commercial decision to ignore or rewrite them in their own profits.

In theory local authorities should be monitoring and enforcing such guidelines and regulations. But, as we all know, there just isn't the money (and will be at least 5% less this time next year).

Personally I'd be quite happy at the idea of company directors being introduced to a few months if not years in prison, when companies they draw enormous benefits from are run so negligently. But that would strike at the very heart of English commercial freedom, so will never happen. (See also: Grenfell)

"Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I am going to suggest that the existing regulations and guidance are completely adequate when followed as intended. No amount of new guidance or regulation is going to make the blindest bit of difference if companies can make a commercial decision to ignore or rewrite them in their own profits."

There are two elements in my response to this, firstly it depends what you mean by guidance, the tone when i read this from the father was that it was about more guidance for parents with regard to what supervising their children at pools really means. and secondly 'Guidance' documents issued by the Health and Safety Executive do meant that companies can be severely penalised. They are called guidance because while they are not 'technically' the law (like Acts and Regulations) if you don't follow the guidance and something happens you are almost automatically considered not to have done everything you could have and thus break the law which covers due diligence and reasonable provisions.

Personally I'd be quite happy at the idea of company directors being introduced to a few months if not years in prison, when companies they draw enormous benefits from are run so negligently. This is already the case. Directors, Senior management and individuals with specific responsibilities can be individually prosecuted and in a criminal court. The4se can result in huge fines to the individual and/or prison time.

Personally I'd be quite happy at the idea of company directors being introduced to a few months if not years in prison, when companies they draw enormous benefits from are run so negligently.

This is already the case. Directors, Senior management and individuals with specific responsibilities can be individually prosecuted and in a criminal court. The4se can result in huge fines to the individual and/or prison time.

I know the theory. I know the practice.

I think young life guards often don't have the experience to deal with argumentative parents who ignore the rules. At my local pool it is dads eyeing up the women and not paying attention to their children - the life guards seem very professional but they always have a mix of more experienced staff with the younger ones.

I'm not sure you do really, as otherwise you would know that implementation is quite harsh. I don't defend the comapnies though, and I do agree that I'd like to see more of the directors take the flack. The problem with major events like Grenfell is that there are simultaneously too many people to blame and not enough single individuals at fault. Legally though the cases surrounding Grenfell will rumble on for a very long time. The public dont see the prosecutions for the majority of health and safety infractions though.

but they always have a mix of more experienced staff with the younger ones. that is quite a key point. In this case I think that one of the potential failings of DL is that there should have been more than 1 lifeguard on duty. There are a number of reasons (the size and busy-ness of the pool are some) but critically a lifeguard under the age of 18 is considered a young worker and if it is deemed that the lifeguard followed their training but was slow to react and/or didn't notice the issue as soon as might have been possible it is the EMPLOYER's liability as they are responsible for ensuring adequate supervision and support for Young Workers. The only way the Lifeguard themself could be deemed at fault would be if they willfully ignored their training, or actively did something to make the situation worse.