By Anonymous - 30/06/2009 02:23 - United States

Today, I was at work lifeguarding and saw a kid drowning on the far end of the pool. I decided running would be the quickest way to get to her, but as I ran across the pool deck I slipped and hit my head. The kid's mother jumped in to save her child and then called an ambulance for me. FML
I agree, your life sucks 48 044
You deserved it 13 967
May weddings: Love and blunders
Weddings are supposed to be perfect, but our stories show that perfection can sometimes be... surprising! More…
Previous FML Next FML

Same thing different taste

Next

Top comments

whatmarielsaid 0

LOL isn't there a rule there saying, "no running around the pool area"? or something along those lines. jeez.

77 3
playwithmeh 0

lol least you tried, that's all matters.

46 6

Comments

gorguz14evar 0

Never run near a pool. Its called logic. Its also called a rule. YDI. Follow the rules, they are there for YOUR SAFETY. You Failed massively lol. Poor kid,

2 14
bettyboop274 0

YDI, you obviously have to know the rules in order to become a lifeguard. Doesn't it say in the lifeguarding manuel "These rulea are for your safety" , well I guess you found out the hard way. I have to say that's a straight up fail as a lifeguard, but kudos to you for trying to save that kids life. 'Nuff said.

1 4
crashdevil666 0

rule #1: never Never run around the pool!! ...dumbass...

1 2
IHateXbox 0

YDI for not following your own rules. Isn't that the most commonly yelled rule at the pool anyway?

1 3
Toas7 0

I'm sorry, but if the kid was drowing on the FAR end of the pool, wouldn't walking be the ILLOGICAL thing to do? I mean, couldn't the kid have, y'know...DIED in the time it would take to walk there? I wouldn't say FYL, OP, but that's still pretty shitty.

6 2
razzumfrazzum 0

You're probably the only intelligent post in this thread. The rest of you: The "no running around the pool" rule is only there to keep places that own public pools from getting sued by some dumb kid's family cuz he/she fell and hurt themselves. Its called a deniability clause. I'm pretty sure had the OP taken his time and sauntered ever so casually over to save the kid everybody would be all "OMG a kids life was in danger. Why didn't you RUN?".......I hate stupid people. OP: That blows at least you attempted to do your job and try to save the kid in an expedient manner. Shit happens. Hooray for parental awareness :D

7 0
your_face 15

Yes. Walking would, indeed, be illogical. There is, however, a third option - SWIMMING. Which would, incidentally, provide a straight line, the shortest distance to the child. So much for the only intelligent post.

0 3
cucuto89 0

because you can swim in the water faster than you can move out of water? I'm a lifeguard and I know I sure can't do that.

1 0
BLNovelist 0

Maybe because swimming would be the fastest route? There was no excuse to run - drowning child or not.

0 3
WIDRR 0

you cannot swim faster than you can run moron. maybe micheal phelps but...

2 0
ra1nmakr 0

running is not that logical in this situation. you have to think of it this way: YOUR safety first. If you get hurt, then how are you supposed to save anyone else. There is no point in you becoming a victim. The OP defines that situation perfectly. A fast walk might have been better then a run. Maybe get some water shoes so you can have traction on the wet ground.

0 1
cxal_fml 0

In a properly staffed pool, there is a life guard at each end at all times. Lifeguards on the deep end are elevated for the sole purpose of allowing them to dive into the pool to save you. Lifeguards on the shallow end are to sit or stand near the edge of the pool so they can immediately jump in to save you. If there was any reason for him to run than he has a lawsuit against his employer for not properly staffing the pool

0 1
divineinstrument 2

Thank god for this! I was fed up off all the comments about how the lifeguard should not have been running! But yeah, thank god that mum was there to save everyone. What a total legend!

1 0
Llama_Face89 33

I still say OP shouldn't have been running. We aren't allowed to at my pool. But we also have 3 guards on duty at all times.

0 0
holly_fly 34

Even walking is twice as fast as most people swimming. Coming from a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, he did the fastest thing he could. Which, by the way, is the first thing they teach you to do. I've ran to save a kid's life before. And I succeeded. OP, don't listen to all these people. You did the right thing.

0 0
InkGothical 0

everyone knows you're not supposed to run. -sheesh-

1 2
CryingHowls 0

yea okay the rule says no running. but OP specifically says that he thought running to the person would be the quickest way. let's not just state the rule "no running" and think it's the OP's fault. maybe the pool was kinda crowded and there were too many people in the way between the drowning kid and the OP. or maybe the kid was drowning somewhere not too far from the edge on the same side as the lifeguard. then it would definitely make sense to run to the drowning kid instead of jumping into the water and then swimming to the edge 2 meters away. give it a thought, guys. i know there's a lot of really dumb people in the world - this website has a lot - but that doesn't mean every single person is dumb.

5 1
whogivesaf_ck08 0

perhaps a paced jogged...but obviously you were gonna run because no one walks to a drowning victim. hope your head is o.k.

1 0
ccreel6800 0

if it's a huge pool, running is faster than swimming.

1 0
Kaplowitz 0

If the pool was too big for him to swim there then that area of the pool would not be watched by him. At my pool, which is an Olympic sized pool, there are 4 life guards. Even if there are less, his zone would not be THAT huge; swimming to the victim would have made the most sense no matter what. Its obvious that he wasnt the one getting the backboard or something because then there would be someone else in the water and the kid's mom would not have been the one to have made the save.

1 1
cucuto89 0

WTF are you talking about getting the backboard. He said he was drowning, not a neck injury. BTW, if you have to get a backboard for someone with a spinal injury, would you walk over there to get it? I think that might really piss off the lifeguard who's holding the victim just chillin there watchin you take your time asshole

1 0
Kaplowitz 0

I was saying that so people wouldnt reply saying "maybe he was getting a backboard!" If the victim is unconscious you need a backboard to get them out of the pool assuming there is no deep end or stairs. I was saying that there was no possibility of this because the OP said "The kid's mother jumped in to save her child" so obviously there was no other lifeguard. That means that: a) he didnt have to get anything, he had to go and save the kid b) the kid was not so far away because he was still in the OP's zone. What does that all mean? The best thing to do would have been to go swim and get the kid, not to run. To me, it seems really obvious...but I guess that's why I didnt have to go to the emergency for attempting to save someone...

0 1