The story of Zachary Stein, the young lifeguard who was arrested and taken to court after performing a life-saving rescue, is a case that shakes the foundation of what it means to be a hero. It forces a difficult conversation about duty of care, the definition of negligence, and the limits of legal responsibility in an emergency.
In this shocking incident, a lifeguard was hailed as a hero by onlookers and then treated as a criminal by authorities, not for failing to act, but for allegedly taking too long to act. The controversy surrounding this case—where a rescuer faces charges after saving a life—highlights a critical area of the law that affects every professional responder: the legal doctrine of duty of care.
How could saving a child from near drow.ning result in an arrest? The answer lies in the specific legal obligations placed upon a certified, on-duty lifeguard, which differ significantly from those of a casual bystander.
The Incident: A Near-Tragedy in the Pool
The facts of the case, as widely reported, are both dramatic and deeply unsettling. Zachary Stein, a 23-year-old certified lifeguard, was on duty at a public pool when a 5-year-old boy, Adam Katak, nearly dro.wned.
The video footage and subsequent reports suggest that the boy was submerged for a period of time before Stein identified the danger. While others nearby, including the boy’s friends, reportedly thought the child was merely holding his breath, Stein eventually acted, pulling the unconscious child from the water and successfully administering CPR. The child was saved and later recovered.
This should have been the end of the story—a tale of successful emergency response. Instead, the boy’s parents arrived and, rather than expressing gratitude, they called the police. Their claim was not that Stein kll-ed their child, but that his alleged inattention allowed the incident to occur in the first place, thus endangering the child.
Police took the extraordinary step of arresting Stein on charges of harming a minor (or a similar form of reckless endangerment). This action, brought by the State based on the parents’ complaint, transformed a rescue into a criminal investigation.
The legal proceedings that followed put Stein in the center of a public firestorm. Ultimately, a judge dismissed the case, finding Stein not guilty, leading to an outcry of support and relief from the community and fellow lifeguards worldwide. However, the arrest itself sent a chilling message to the entire profession.
🧐 The Critical Legal Distinction: Duty of Care
To understand how an arrest is possible in a life-saving situation, one must grasp the concept of “Duty of Care” and how it distinguishes an on-duty professional from a civilian.
1. The On-Duty Professional
A lifeguard is considered a hired professional who has entered into a contract with their employer to maintain the safety of the pool patrons. Legally, this establishes a high Duty of Care. This duty requires the lifeguard to act not just reasonably, but as a reasonably prudent certified lifeguard would under the circumstances.
In the legal world, if a dro.wning occurs, investigators don’t just look at the rescue; they examine the entire sequence of events, often looking at surveillance footage, to answer a critical question: Did the lifeguard uphold their professional duty to prevent the near-drowning?
- The Allegation of Negligence: The argument against Stein was not about his life-saving actions, but his actions before the rescue. If security camera footage showed the child was under the water for a prolonged time (in some reports, up to four minutes), this could be interpreted as a failure to maintain constant, vigilant scanning. In the eyes of the law, a failure to meet the standard of a reasonably prudent lifeguard could be classified as negligence, which, in cases of serious injury, can sometimes rise to the level of criminal charges, such as reckless endangerment.
2. Why Good Samaritan Laws Don’t Apply
Many people wonder why Stein was not protected by Good Samaritan laws, which are designed to protect rescuers from liability when they provide emergency aid.
The key to Good Samaritan laws is that they typically apply to a person who is volunteering aid and has no pre-existing duty to the victim. Since an on-duty lifeguard has a contractual and professional duty to the patrons, they are generally not protected by these laws while they are on the clock. Their actions are instead judged by the higher standard of their professional training and their employment contract’s safety protocols (e.g., scanning the pool area every 10 seconds, maintaining a 10/20 rule).
🧠 The Psychological and Precedent-Setting Impact
The arrest of a rescuer, regardless of the ultimate verdict, has a profound and negative impact on the entire profession.
The Chilling Effect
The most immediate concern is the “chilling effect” this case has on other first responders. A lifeguard is trained to act instantly, without hesitation. When they see a colleague arrested for a rescue they successfully completed, it introduces a terrifying moment of self-doubt and legal fear into a job that demands absolute decisiveness.
- The Dilemma: Does a lifeguard hesitate for a split second to consider their potential legal exposure? That single moment of hesitation is all the time a child needs to slip from a near-drow.ning to a full-blown tra.gedy.
The Parents’ Role: Personal vs. Professional Responsibility
A secondary, yet crucial, element of this case is the question of parental responsibility. Many commentators, including fellow lifeguards, pointed out that while the lifeguard has a professional duty, the ultimate responsibility for a young child’s safety in the water rests with the parent.
In many pool facilities, safety guidelines require parents to be within arm’s reach of non-swimming or young children. The decision by the parents to pursue criminal charges against the person who saved their son’s life, rather than accepting any measure of their own responsibility, was widely criticized as an attempt to shift blame and potentially secure grounds for a civil lawsuit.
🛡️ Protecting Lifeguards: What Can Be Done?
The Stein case and others like it illuminate the need for clearer legal protection and standards for professional rescuers.
- Revising Good Samaritan Laws: Some legal experts argue that state Good Samaritan laws should be expanded to offer a limited shield to professional rescuers who act in good faith, even if a review finds minor professional lapses that did not directly contribute to the final outcome. The focus should be on gross negligence—a reckless disregard for human life—not simple errors in judgment.
- Clearer Employer Indemnity: Employers (pool owners, municipalities) should have strong policies to indemnify or legally protect their lifeguards. This means the employer, not the individual lifeguard, takes on the responsibility for the legal defense in a lawsuit, provided the lifeguard was acting within the scope of their employment. The financial and emotional burden of defending a criminal charge should not fall on a young, low-wage worker.
- Mandatory Education: There is a crucial need for public education regarding the lifeguard’s role. A lifeguard is a last line of defense, not a babysitter. Patrons must understand that their own vigilance is required for their children’s safety, and the lifeguard’s eyes are scanning dozens of people, not just one.
🔑 Key Takeaway: The Thin Line Between Duty and Disaster
The ordeal faced by Zachary Stein serves as a stark reminder of the immense pressure placed on lifeguards. They are expected to maintain an impossible level of perfection in an environment where tragedy can occur silently and in seconds.
The judge’s final verdict of not guilty reaffirmed the moral truth: Stein was a rescuer who saved a life. However, the initial arrest was a powerful demonstration of the law’s strict interpretation of an on-duty professional’s legal obligation.
While it is necessary to hold professionals accountable for gross negligence, the legal system must be careful not to penalize the very act of rescue. If the consequence of attempting to save a life is a criminal charge, the chilling effect will not just hurt lifeguards—it will ultimately cost lives.