Starting the Discussion About Reintroducing a Lifeguard Program at the Beach

[XLFD]

A local analytical pundit who has spent many, many decades in Ludington recently drafted an in-depth essay exploring the reasons why the lifeguard program should be revived or whether it should stay underwater.  The analysis could go for any beach town that offers a potentially dangerous public swimming area and identifies factors that should be used when making a decision either way in its conclusions.   There has been no debate at city hall between public officials since 2011, when they opted to use a beach patrol that would put a presence at the park but offer no monitoring of swimmers or any additional rescue skills or training.   -- Editor

The issue of liability for a city that provides public amenities like beaches with known
hazards

The issue of liability for a city that provides public amenities like beaches with known
hazards, such as rip currents, is complex and depends on multiple factors, including the
jurisdiction’s legal framework, the city’s efforts to mitigate risks, and the specific
circumstances of an incident.

In general terms, providing lifeguards could potentially reduce liability if it shows that the
city is taking reasonable steps to ensure public safety. However, it could also create a
higher standard of care, meaning the city might be held more responsible if those safety
measures are inadequate or if the lifeguards are found to be negligent.

Here’s how the liability might be affected:

Greater Liability with Lifeguards:

Negligence in Lifeguard Training or Response: If lifeguards are poorly trained or fail to
respond properly to an emergency, the city could be held liable for not providing adequate
protection. The city may be held to a higher standard of care because it has taken on an
active role in protecting beachgoers.

Expectation of Safety: By providing lifeguards, the city is signaling that it is monitoring the
beach and taking responsibility for swimmer safety. If a swimmer relies on lifeguard
supervision and something goes wrong, the city could face greater legal scrutiny.

Lower Liability with Lifeguards:

Reasonable Safety Measures: If lifeguards are properly trained, visible, and perform their
duties effectively, the city may be able to show that it took reasonable precautions to
protect the public. Courts may be less likely to find the city liable if an incident occurs
despite those measures.

Warnings and Rescue Services: The presence of lifeguards can help prevent accidents and
respond quickly to emergencies, reducing the likelihood of incidents. If a drowning or injury
occurs despite the presence of lifeguards, the city might be able to argue that it did
everything reasonably expected.

Without Lifeguards:

If the city does not provide lifeguards, it might still be liable, but the liability may be
different. In some cases, the city could argue that it had no duty to actively protect
swimmers beyond posting warning signs (e.g., about rip currents). However, failing to
provide lifeguards on a dangerous beach could still result in liability if the court finds that
the city should have done more to protect the public.

Conclusion:

Overall, providing lifeguards can be a double-edged sword for liability. While it
demonstrates a commitment to safety, it also raises the standard of care. The best
approach for the city would be to ensure that any lifeguards are well-trained and that safety
protocols, such as warning signs and public awareness campaigns about rip currents, are
also in place.  Laws may differ significantly by state, so it's important to consider local regulations and legal.

How would the above affect the city's insurance?

The presence of lifeguards, walkways, food stands, and known hazards like rip currents can
have a significant impact on the city’s insurance coverage, premiums, and risk
management strategies. Here's how these factors might influence the city's insurance:

1. Increased Insurance Premiums with Lifeguards:

Providing lifeguards at a public beach can increase the city’s insurance premiums due to
the following reasons:

Higher Standard of Care: Lifeguards increase the city’s responsibility, meaning any
incidents of negligence could lead to higher liability claims. Insurers typically raise
premiums when a city takes on greater risks, especially if lifeguards are involved in saving
lives or preventing injuries.

Operational Risks: If the lifeguards are city employees, the city may need to cover their
training, certification, and potential liability if something goes wrong during a rescue or if a
swimmer is injured while lifeguards are on duty. This can increase the city’s general liability
insurance and possibly workers' compensation insurance for the lifeguards themselves.

2. Decreased Liability Insurance Risk with Lifeguards:

On the flip side, providing lifeguards might lower the city's risk exposure and, in some
cases, lead to a reduction in liability insurance costs if insurers view the presence of
lifeguards as part of a strong risk management strategy. Specifically:

Risk Mitigation Measures: If the city demonstrates it is taking comprehensive risk
management steps (like having trained lifeguards, clear warning signs about rip currents,
and educating the public on beach safety), this could be viewed positively by insurers. They
may see the presence of lifeguards as mitigating potential liability claims.

Fewer Claims Due to Accidents: If lifeguards can prevent accidents, drownings, or injuries
by responding quickly to emergencies, it could reduce the number of claims filed against
the city, potentially stabilizing or even lowering insurance premiums over time.

3. Increased Premiums Without Lifeguards (in High-Risk Areas):

In some jurisdictions, not providing lifeguards on a beach known for dangerous conditions
(like strong rip currents) could result in higher insurance premiums. This is because:

Increased Liability Exposure: The city may be seen as failing to provide adequate safety
measures, increasing the likelihood of accidents or lawsuits. In high-risk areas, the
absence of lifeguards could be viewed as negligence, especially if drowning incidents have
occurred in the past.

Higher Risk Perception: Insurers might increase premiums for liability coverage if they
perceive the city as not doing enough to mitigate known dangers at the beach, such as
posting warnings, fencing off dangerous areas, or providing lifeguards.

4. Insurance Adjustments for Additional Amenities:

Additional amenities like walkways, food and alcohol stands, and grooming the beach can
also influence insurance:

Food and Alcohol Stands: The sale of alcohol on the beach could increase liquor liability
exposure. Alcohol-related incidents, such as fights, accidents, or injuries due to
intoxication, could lead to higher premiums or additional insurance riders for liquor liability.
Walkways and Grooming: These amenities could impact property liability insurance if they
increase foot traffic and the likelihood of slip-and-fall claims. However, well-maintained
and accessible walkways might reduce risks of injury, possibly balancing out any increase
in premiums.

5. Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance:

Given the combination of factors—public safety, alcohol sales, and known environmental
hazards like rip currents—the city might consider an umbrella insurance policy or excess
liability insurance to provide additional coverage beyond the limits of its primary policies.
This would protect the city in case of large lawsuits or catastrophic incidents.

Conclusion:

The city’s decision to provide lifeguards, along with other amenities, will likely affect its
insurance premiums and coverage terms. Insurers may increase premiums due to the
higher standard of care, but a comprehensive risk management strategy that includes
lifeguards, warning signs, and public safety measures could reduce liability exposure and
stabilize costs over time.

Deciding whether a city should provide lifeguards at a public beach, especially one with
known hazards like rip currents, requires a careful weighing of public safety, liability, cost,
and risk management. Here’s a breakdown of key considerations that can help guide the
decision:

Reasons to Provide Lifeguards:

Public Safety:

Protection Against Drowning: Lifeguards are trained to recognize dangerous conditions,
prevent drownings, and respond quickly to emergencies. In areas with rip currents,
lifeguards can play a crucial role in saving lives by providing immediate assistance.
Prevention: Lifeguards do more than just respond to emergencies; they actively monitor
conditions and can prevent dangerous situations from arising by warning swimmers and
enforcing safety rules.

Safety Perception: The presence of lifeguards can give the public more confidence in the
safety of the beach, potentially increasing usage, which could benefit local businesses and
tourism.

Risk Mitigation and Liability Reduction:

Active Risk Management: By providing lifeguards, the city demonstrates that it is taking
reasonable measures to protect beachgoers, which may reduce the risk of being found
negligent in lawsuits related to accidents or drownings.

Fewer Incidents: With trained personnel on hand, the likelihood of serious accidents could
decrease, possibly leading to fewer lawsuits and lower insurance claims. This could
stabilize or reduce insurance costs over time.

Stronger Legal Defense: In the event of a lawsuit, the city could argue that it took all
reasonable steps to protect the public by providing lifeguards and appropriate safety
measures.

Ethical Responsibility:  If the city knows the beach poses dangers (such as rip currents), there may be a moral obligation to provide adequate safety measures. Failing to do so could be seen as
neglecting public safety, even if legally the city might not be strictly required to provide
lifeguards.

Challenges and Reasons Against Providing Lifeguards:

Financial Burden: Employing lifeguards requires significant investment in salaries, training,
certification, and possibly more insurance coverage. The city would also need to maintain
lifeguard equipment and facilities.

Budget Constraints: Smaller cities or those with limited budgets might find it difficult to
justify the ongoing expense, especially if the beach is only used during certain months of
the year or if the risk of incidents is statistically low.

Increased Liability in Certain Circumstances:

Higher Standard of Care: Once lifeguards are provided, the city could be held to a higher
standard of care. If a lifeguard makes a mistake or fails to prevent a drowning, the city may
be exposed to greater liability than if no lifeguards were present.

Lifeguard Negligence: If a lifeguard acts negligently or fails to respond to an emergency
properly, the city could be held liable for that lifeguard’s actions.

Logistical Issues:

Training and Staffing Challenges: Ensuring that lifeguards are well-trained and available at
all times during operating hours can be challenging, especially in areas with fluctuating
beach use or limited qualified personnel.

Coverage Limitations: Providing lifeguards only during peak hours or seasons might not
fully mitigate risks if accidents occur outside of staffed times, potentially leading to
criticism or liability in those gaps.

Balanced Perspective:

Considering both sides, the decision on whether to provide lifeguards should ultimately
depend on the specific circumstances of the beach, such as the frequency and severity of
hazards, budget, and expected usage by the public.

In high-risk areas, such as beaches with known rip currents, heavy foot traffic, or a history
of incidents, providing lifeguards is likely a prudent decision to protect public safety and
reduce legal liability.

In lower-risk areas or beaches with less frequent visitors, the city might opt for a
combination of other safety measures, such as clear signage about rip currents, public
education campaigns, and perhaps roving lifeguard patrols during peak hours.

Best Practices for a Balanced Approach:

If the city does choose to provide lifeguards, here are some strategies to manage risks and
balance costs:

Seasonal or Part-Time Lifeguard Services: Lifeguards could be deployed during peak
seasons or high-traffic hours, reducing costs while still addressing safety needs when the
beach is busiest.

Clear Signage and Public Education: Alongside lifeguards, the city should provide clear,
visible warnings about rip currents and other dangers to ensure beachgoers are aware of
the risks.

Community and Volunteer Programs: Some cities partner with volunteer or community-based organizations to provide lifeguard services or additional safety oversight, potentially
reducing costs.

Technology Assistance: The city might consider using safety technology like rip current
detection systems, drones, or emergency alert apps to assist lifeguards in monitoring and
responding to dangerous conditions.

Conclusion:

On balance, if the beach is known to have strong rip currents or other dangerous
conditions, the city should seriously consider providing lifeguards. While it involves a
financial investment and the potential for increased liability, the benefits of safeguarding
public health, reducing the number of accidents, and minimizing the risk of lawsuits
generally outweigh the drawbacks.

After considering all of this my conclusion is that contracting with an outside firm to
provide lifeguards may be the best option and perhaps could be incorporated with both the
high school pool and West Shore pool as both have issues acquiring adequate lifeguards.
Another option is a state law requiring qualifying beaches to have lifeguards.

[Willy]

Interesting reading. I am of the opinion that if people want to swim in Lake Michigan then they must assume the risks involved. There are thousands of miles of Great Lakes shoreline, so I say, use at your own risk. Who is going to watch out for the swimmers on the many miles of beach located in Ludington State Park? I wish we could save everyone but that's just not going to happen.

[XLFD]

That's not a bad take on your part, and I'd generally agree with it based only on my own experiences, since when I go swimming in the lake, I will do so in the stretch between the city and LSP, or possibly at Buttersville where it's not so rocky.

I think, however, that it is a mistake to avoid not having a discussion about lifeguards at the municipal level given that our town is heavily invested in beach tourism, that is, whether it is in the City's best interest to bring back the lifeguard program.  After three drownings in 2010, a year after they dropped the program, city leaders decided it would be best to have a presence down at the beach and shifted the money over to beach safety/beach patrol.

The main obstacle at the time against lifeguards was liability, that was according to City Attorney Richard Wilson from Manistee.  Because of the force of his caveat, they didn't consider it.  Recently, I have come to believe that Wilson had a good reason for making a big case out of liability:  the City of Manistee which he and his firm also represented, didn't have such a program and maybe he was aware that Ludington would have a leg up on attracting tourism if they offered lifeguards at the city's premiere beach. 

Over the next decade, it appears that Wilson actively prevented the topic from being seriously considered anymore, but not suggesting anything about the possible extra liability of having a beach patrol that largely is there for crowd control and other law enforcement aims.  In practice, it probably makes tourists less likely to enjoy their day out at Stearns Beach.  

This group of councilors are unlikely to have a good debate, having been trained to treasure teamwork over dissent, but in my honest opinion, if they want beach presence as they show by annually funding the beach patrol, why don't they put the exact same money in for a lifeguard program?  Maybe defer it, if we haven't enough qualified at-the-ready personnel and our high school swimming squads need to be retooled to have a higher emphasis on lifesaving skills.