Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:


Now let's look at the facts (as I know them).
Company has been contracted by the town for lifeguarding a beach.
Company hires people, but limits each one to a certain stretch of
beach, narrowly delineated. Contract with employees says that
lifeguard cannot leave his duty station/stretch of beach unless he
has gotten a replacement person to take over his duties. That's
understandable in view of liability for the company: don't leave the
duty station without getting a replacement.
Guard A is on duty at the end of the contracted beach. Beyond his
stretch of beach on 1 side, there is no lifeguard on duty. "A" at
some point notices that a person "P" a few yeards outside "A"'s area
of responsibility is in the water and in distress. Following his
duty that /if so able he should help a person in distress/ (that's
the part that is important - it's akin to the good samaritan laws) he
goes to help "P".
But Florida has no duty to respond law. A's area of responsibility
for in water and in distress IS ONLY A CERTAIN SECTION OF BEACH. This
is the difference. He may morally feel his has an obligation, but that
doesn't impact on whether or not he can be legally fired.


Nobody gets really injured, whether or not due to the efforts of "A".
Company fires "A" because he left his duty station without getting a
replacement (see above). Stink erupts because of "/if so able he
should help a person in distress/", and company relents, but in the
meantime, "A" has decided he doesn't want to work for such a company,
as did a number of his colleagues.
The last portion is irrelevant for the determination whether or not
the firing was justified, of course, but helps to see what the
general public thinks.
Me thinks that the company cannot use the at-will law to fire "A"
becaus "A" is fulfilling the duty he sees to "/if so able he should
help a person in distress/".
Case closed.
But he has no duty under law or public policy to respond outside
of
the area he is being paid to respond to. So, the company is entirely
within their rights to can him. Now, whether or not they SHOULD have,
since the **** storm was foreseeable if anyone thought about it, is
another.... non-legal.. question altogether.

As I interpret it, there does not need to be a "duty" to respond. It is
just that the fire at will law has an exception for cases just like this.
If I read the cited section of Florida law correctly. IMO the "rule"
does not have to explicitly say that I cannot let a person die. Common
decency requires that if I can help someone in distress, I should do so.
Again English is my second language, and I was brought up (decades ago)
to help people needing help if it was in my province to do so.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid