The presence of a lifeguard raises the standard of care considerably. A lifeguard is not merely a decorative safety measure — they are a trained professional whose entire role is to monitor swimmers, identify distress, and respond to emergencies.

When a public pool employs lifeguards, it is making an implicit representation to the public that active supervision is being provided.

If a swimmer is injured or drowns while a lifeguard is on duty, the legal analysis typically focuses on whether the lifeguard performed their responsibilities adequately. Courts and juries will examine questions such as:

• Was the lifeguard on duty paying attention?
• Was the lifeguard properly positioned to observe the pool?
• Did the lifeguard respond promptly to signs of distress?
• Was the lifeguard properly trained and certified?

Fatigue, distraction, understaffing, or poor positioning can all constitute a failure to meet the required standard of care.

Importantly, liability in these cases does not rest solely with the individual lifeguard. A pool operator (City of Ottawa, for instance) or employer may be held vicariously liable for the lifeguard’s negligence under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds employers responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees committed within the scope of their employment. Beyond vicarious liability, the operator may also face direct liability for negligent hiring, inadequate training, or failure to maintain appropriate staffing ratios.