What is the state of the law on gross negligence in a drowning case?

Although the appellate record is purportedly cold I can not leave this case without admitting that I will remain haunted by the specter of this young man's lengthy, unsuccessful struggle against the power of the sea, fighting to stay afloat, emotionally assisted by what can only be described as a callous call from the beach that "help was on the way." In no way can this case be compared to the drowning described in City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 999, 244 Cal.Rptr. 105 where lifeguards came to assist the victim as soon as they were able to do so, about 20 minutes after the accident occurred. All those participating in the rescue efforts were certified emergency technicians. It was also undisputed that the lifeguard assigned to the area was elsewhere properly attending to another problem when the accident happened. (At p. 1002, 244 Cal.Rptr. 105.) I agree the facts in City of Santa Cruz do not present triable factual issues on the question of the City's gross negligence. I can not agree here. This case should be decided on the evidence presented in a trial and not on the documents before us.