Member of the American College of Forensic Examiners DEFENSE OF TROPICANA RESORT AND GAMING CASINO POOL, FITNESS CENTER AND STEAM BATH IN ATLANTIC CITY
On August 29, 1993, plaintiff, age 3, entered the pool area of her apartment complex with four adults, including her parents, and five other children. There were two lifeguards on duty at the time, age 17 and age 15. Their duties as lifeguards included watching the pool area, cleaning the pool and cleaning the grounds. Both lifeguards normally worked at other pools, but were assigned to this particular pool on August 29th. There were no lifeguard stations or lifeguard stands in the pool area. The two lifeguards spent most of the day either on the steps leading down to the pool or at a table and chair set off to the side of the steps. Between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m, plaintiff and her family were barbecuing near the pool and the plaintiff was sitting on the edge of the deep end of the pool (9 ft.) with her feet hanging in the water. There is a dispute as to the location of the lifeguards at the time of the accident. There were photographs showing the lifeguards lying down, sleeping or sun-tanning and listening to music with ear phones. Conversely, the lifeguards stated that they were sitting across from each other on the ledge and scanning the pool. One of the lifeguards stated that she saw the plaintiff approach the deep end, sit on the ledge and place her feet in the water. She also stated that it appeared to her that the child was preparing to enter the water. Both lifeguards stated that when the child went into the water, they were distracted and did not witness her entry or presence in the water until they were alerted by another patron that she was under water. Trial testimony showed that the plaintiff was under water up to nine (9) minutes before the lifeguards were alerted.
One of the lifeguards removed her shorts and dived into the pool to retrieve the plaintiff, bringing her to the surface. The plaintiff was pulled out of the water and the lifeguard gave the plaintiff two rescue breaths. She realized that the plaintiff had food in and outside of her mouth. The lifeguard did not know how to clear the airway below the mouth and told someone to call for emergency help because no phone or other means of communication were available at the pool. after five series of lifesaving efforts, the lifeguard asked her partner to take over. The first lifeguard became emotionally upset and witnesses indicated that both lifeguards were hysterical and in a panicked state. It was clear that the lifeguards had not been involved in an emergency situation before this and neither lifeguard was confident or comfortable in this situation. No one with experience in aquatic emergency situations was present.
The plaintiff began to cough up food. The lifeguards were able to get a pulse but the plaintiff was not breathing on her own. The paramedics finally arrived and took over the plaintiff's care. The paramedics transported the plaintiff to Delaware County Emergency Room where she was stabilized. She was then transferred via Medivac Helicopter to Children's Hospital in Philadelphia. As a result of this near fatal drowning, the plaintiff is severely brain damaged.
Dr. Leonard K. Lucenko, the aquatics risk management, safety and liability expert, testified that the lifeguards had not been provided an effective orientation at the Park Lane East Pool Complex. Dr. Lucenko testified in court that management should have made it clear to the lifeguards that it was their responsibility to enforce the pool rules. There should have been a policy regarding lifeguard positioning and surveillance. Management was completely remiss in not conducting a seminar on the rules of each pool the lifeguards would be expected to survey. Most importantly, the two new lifeguards should have had an experienced supervisor with them during their entire first day of work at the new pool. To leave two lifeguards who are unfamiliar with the pool rules, procedures, and emergency plan alone on their first day, is completely irresponsible and reckless, especially since neither one had ever been confronted by an emergency situation. Dr. Lucenko also testified that the lack of a written emergency plan and the failure to rehearse and become proficient in carrying out such a plan was grossly negligent on the part of the management of Park Lane East Pool Club. It was obvious that no such plan was in existence and that neither lifeguard had ever been confronted with practicing or rehearsing an emergency situation in order to be confident and decisive. Dr. Lucenko testified that the management was grossly negligent in the following aspects of swimming pool safety: 1. Lack of proper supervision of the inexperienced staff. 2. Lack of emergency phone. 3. Lack of posting and enforcing elementary rules at the facility. 4. Lack of elevated lifeguard stands or designated lifeguard chairs and their locations.
These actions by the management of Park Lane East were grossly reckless and outrageous. Verdict: $24 million dollars awarded to the plaintiffs. Largest aquatic injury verdict in Pennsylvania. Weightman v. National Realty Corp., Fortjoy Development Corp. and Park Lane East Apartments.
