[ConorMacNessa]

An absolute outrage! Back in the old days the guiding maxim was "Necessity demands a rescue!" The law then, in the 19th Century, was articulated by a court in Texas in a case whose caption I have long forgotten: "The Law places such value on a human life that it will not impute negligence to an effort to save it." That's not an exact quote but pretty close.

This case is a good example of how low our society has sunk. In a better world, the term of the contract forbidding the lifeguards to pass the boundary of their jurisdiction would, IMHO, be unenforceable on the basis of being "malum in se" (inherently evil, or evil in itself.) The lifeguards, particularly the one who saved the drowning swimmer, deserve medals.

My 16 year-old son is working as a lifeguard in local pools this Summer. I haven't asked him, but I believe he would have gone past the boundary buoy to save a distressed swimmer. If he did not, I'd toss him out in the street as a craven cur.



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[dayglored]

> the term of the contract forbidding the lifeguards to pass the boundary of their jurisdiction would, IMHO, be unenforceable on the basis of being "malum in se" (inherently evil, or evil in itself.)

EXACTLY! You put it very well.

> I believe [my son] would have gone past the boundary buoy to save a distressed swimmer. If he did not, I'd toss him out in the street as a craven cur.

Spot on again. That's what I tried to convey in my third point at the top -- I could not live with myself if did not do so.