The idea (hope?) is that if the taxpayers of a jurisdiction pay out enough of their tax dollars because of the failures of their government, they may decide to vote differently at the next election, and vote in folks who will be more demanding of the government agencies under their supervision/command.

In my analysis, the key issue is the "negligence," (if any) of the responding organizations. Black's Law dictionary defines negligence as "NEGLIGENCE. The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do. or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It must be determined in all cases by reference to the situation and knowledge of the parties and all the attendant circumstances."

IMO, the facts as we know them, seem to show a Keystone Kops scenario of "not my job." As has been pointed out, various rescue scenario's in this area were not uncommon, and the procedures and responsibilities to deal with various scenarios should have been well understood and worked out, and agreed to. Apparently, this was not the case.

So, regardless of the failings of the victim, if the death resulted from delay caused by the negligence (see above definition) of the various organizations whose mission it was to save him (even from his own screw up), IMO, the lawsuit is justified in the hope that the various organizations will correct their failings, or the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for those failings will force them to.