Near Drowning Life time fitness N Austin june09 (house, live in)

[drippingspringsgal]

I am also a member of the South Austin Lifetime Fitness and the child who tragically drowned was NOT in any swim lesson or camp. My understanding of the situation is that the mother (you hate to say it) was at fault. She was not in the pool with her child and she was paying no attention at all to him while he was in the water. I can't even imagine that because I have a 4 year old grandson and I would never be more than an arm's length away from him if he was in a pool on my watch. Supposedly the child was playing directly under the lifeguard stand so effectively out of view of the lifeguard. The lifeguards at these clubs are generally young kids in their 20s, and I understand that the kid who was on duty that day has had a really hard time coping with what happened, understandably. It's just so sad all around but I don't think it's right for the mother to sue the gym for her own parental negligence.

[woodinvilleguy]

IMHO, we should not be commenting on this at all since it is all hear say. I would suggest this thread be locked.

[austinnerd]

The north Lifetime has now instituted a rule whereby kids have to take a "swim test". If your kiddo can swim one lap then they get a yellow band and are free to do whatever they want. If they don't pass, then someone is required to either be in the water with them or no further than 10ft away. Not sure if the south Lifetime also has the same rule.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by Rexfelis

Please do not spread nonsense about the S LFT drowning. The parent snuck into the facility with two other single women and her son was not taking swim lessons or even in a camp. According to people who know the mother, they claim that the mother saw a friend on the way to the pool while her 4 year old ran ahead and went in by himself unwatched. It wasn't until the boy had been pulled from the pool and was in the process of having CPR applied before his mother had noticed something was wrong. The really ridiculous thing about the S LFT drowning is that the mother is now suing LFT for $28 million after she snuck in and then failed to watch her 4 year old in the swimming pool. The lifeguards are there to help with emergencies, not to make sure that every 4 year old who isn't being watched by a parent doesn't drown.

She didn't sneak in, she signed in at the front as a guest, but according to the newspaper article there was a problem with the sign in and that's what Lifetime is arguing. That's quite a different thing than "sneaking in." The other two "single" women (what does their marital status have to do with anything?) were members according to press reports.

[Mrs.JT]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

IMHO, we should not be commenting on this at all since it is all hear say. I would suggest this thread be locked.

I agree.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread. I have a toddler, and I can't even imagine...it made me sick to the stomach.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by Mrs.JT

I agree.

I can't believe I read all the way through this thread. I have a toddler, and I can't even imagine...it made me sick to the stomach.

I disagree, these forums exist to discuss things, some of which are unfortunately unpleasant. I posted some factual information that could be useful to parents who are lifetime members (or potential members). Closure of this thread would have prevented that.

Having kiddos myself, this truly is a tragic situation, regardless of who may be at fault (both practically and legally, which are two separate issues). However, closing/deleting a thread simply because there is hearsay and conjecture would set a dangerous (imho) precedent and if applied evenly across all threads would likely result in the closing of the majority of them.

If an individual post is inflammatory, defaming, etc, etc then I understand that a mod might want to edit/delete it, but I don't think this entire thread has degenerated to the point where the thread itself should be locked.

[woodinvilleguy]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

I disagree, these forums exist to discuss things, some of which are unfortunately unpleasant. I posted some factual information that could be useful to parents who are lifetime members (or potential members). Closure of this thread would have prevented that.

Having kiddos myself, this truly is a tragic situation, regardless of who may be at fault (both practically and legally, which are two separate issues). However, closing/deleting a thread simply because there is hearsay and conjecture would set a dangerous (imho) precedent and if applied evenly across all threads would likely result in the closing of the majority of them.

If an individual post is inflammatory, defaming, etc, etc then I understand that a mod might want to edit/delete it, but I don't think this entire thread has degenerated to the point where the thread itself should be locked.

the problem is the people are stating facts that they don't actually "know".

If it was about the drowning or watching your kids in the pool then it would be fine. But it is about "I heard she snuck in" or "I heard she signed in".

How do you know what you posted about her is factual? Are you an eye witness?

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

the problem is the people are stating facts that they don't actually "know".

If it was about the drowning or watching your kids in the pool then it would be fine. But it is about "I heard she snuck in" or "I heard she signed in".

How do you know what you posted about her is factual? Are you an eye witness?

Well "know" is a relative term anyway. I've read many articles on so called reliable news outlets (e.g. Statesman) where the facts later proved that the original reporting was incorrect. So the answer is that one does not know. Ideally if one were presenting hearsay, then they would explicitly state it as such, but we all know that this does not happen. You asked if I was an eye witness, even if I was, it's simply my recollection of the events, which could very well differ and contradict others.

My point though is that while there may be some specific posts that a mod might consider inaccurate enough to censure, I don't think the topic is in and of itself something that "can't be talked about". Fact is that a kid drowned in a local pool, that is certainly within the charter of this forum to discuss.

Plus, and I'm not sure if your last sentence is directed at me or not, since I didn't post anything about the lady or the situation (though I do believe my post is very much on topic). So you either didn't read my post before replying or am I to assume that it's a rhetorical question?

[Rexfelis]

Use some logic. They are suing her for trespassing. You think Lifetime is going to sue someone for trespassing if they filled out the paper work but didn't take a tour? Before this incident people would enter the facility and the people at the desk would get overwhelmed, many people took advantage of this by sneaking people in so they didn't get one of their guest spots taken up. Now they don't let a single person past and always make sure people sign in their guests. They made this change specifically due to the drowning and because people were sneaking in people which caused them to be sued in this situation.

As for hearsay, are you kidding me? Is this a court of law? Are any of members of the jury? Everything on a forum, the internet, and any so called news source is hearsay. Feel free to believe the Statesman's hearsay over people who been going to the south Lifetime since it opened.

Here is a case study on the incident by someone who claims to have seen the surveillance footage:

Lifesaving Resources Inc. (http://www.lifesaving.com/case_studies/show_article.php?section=case&id=1174 - broken link)

The article is heavily biased for the mother with phrases such as:

"Jana was watching Colin from her chair, but the zero-entry depth pool had a Mushroom Splash Attraction that likely blocked Jana's view of Colin at a certain point in time." - get up and move so you can see your child

"Life Time Fitness advocates adherence to the 10/20 Rule as well as the 5-Minute Rule. Yet, Colin's distress went unrecognized by "certified" lifeguard personnel for a time in excess of 7 minutes which is inexcusable and indicative of a complete failure to exercise reasonable care in performing patron surveillance." - wow...I can't imagine not watching a 4 year old for 7 minutes straight in a pool as a parent.

It is simply inexcusable to leave a 4 year old in the pool alone, let alone out of sight while you are sitting down and talking to friends. Children that age drown FAST as they don't have the experience or the strength to fight off water.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by Rexfelis

Use some logic. They are suing her for trespassing. You think Lifetime is going to sue someone for trespassing if they filled out the paper work but didn't take a tour? Before this incident people would enter the facility and the people at the desk would get overwhelmed, many people took advantage of this by sneaking people in so they didn't get one of their guest spots taken up. Now they don't let a single person past and always make sure people sign in their guests. They made this change specifically due to the drowning and because people were sneaking in people which caused them to be sued in this situation.

Moderator cut: off topic/personal I got my information from this Statesman article that reads in part:
"According to court documents filed by Life Time, the family did not have memberships at the club and Jana Holst was not officially authorized to enter the club. Although she signed in at the front desk, she did not follow other guest policies such as taking a tour and showing a photo ID, the suit claims."
Fitness company sues mother of drowned boy
She signed in and if the folks didn't tell her to she had to stop and show ID it means they were understaffed up front. I think they are going to be out of luck with their trespassing suit.

I'm a JD (although not currently practicing and not licensed in TX) and yes, they are going to throw everything they can at her to try and find contributory negligence to decrease the amount of a potential award. That's how tort law works; it has nothing to do with logic.