Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[ItsBruce]

I've read the Tancredi case many times, sometimes twice or three times back to back. I have not read it in the last 6 or 8 months, however, so I'm not as fresh on it as I once was. And, I've read tons of other cases since. Much though I like all of you, I'm not going to re-read it tonight. So, I will go off memory.

Basically, what happened was that Tancredi, an inexperienced diver with an OW certification, but no deep diving experience, went on a dive charter that took the group on a 145 foot dive with a bottom time of 20 minutes. The diver charter did not assign a buddy to Tancredi. The other divers had buddies. During the dive, Tancredi had an OOA. The DM had used the last of his own air to fill a lift bag on the anchor, was also OOA and couldn't help him. The DM was able to share with another diver and surfaced. Tancredi died. In the ensuing lawsuit, the court found the dive charter and DM were negligent for: failing to ascertain whether Tancredi was qualified for the dive, not ensuring Tancredi had a dive buddy, exceeding the PADI maximum depth, doing a deco dive, doing a dive that left divers with very little air at the end of the dive, and for the DM using up his remaining air to fill the lift bag.

Although the court talked about the deceased as having made the decision to do the actual dive, i.e. not to sit it out or thumb it, the court also noted that once the boat had headed out to sea, the deceased really did not have much choice about the dive.

One thing that I noticed in the case was that the dive was not one where the charter simply served as transportation to a dive site where divers could do as they pleased after they planed their own dives.

And, I must tell you all, IMHO, the dive operator and DM in the Tancredi case were horribly negligent. It was almost as bad as if they had not confirmed that the deceased was even certified.

Now, changing topics slightly: Who here did not go deeper than 60 fsw before doing AOW?

 

[fisheater]

Now, changing topics slightly: Who here did not go deeper than 60 fsw before doing AOW?

Me. I started AOW with dive #6. My only - to that point- non-class dive was very shallow.

No problems with my deep dives in AOW, though. Heck, my first night dive was '85 feet.

 

[Thalassamania]

So you agree with the courts that someone other than Tancredi, a certified diver, was (in large part) responsible for his death?

 

[D_B]

I'm going to have to agree with the court, based on the info given by Bruce ... By anyones standards that was an advanced dive and the charter of all people should know that, and have a decent plan for the dive if they were going to lead it and to see if the divers had more than an OW cert, or experience to do them

I didn't dive past 60ft, but much like fisheater I went to AOW right out of OW

 

[browntrout]

We were at 80' on our first two dives in the ocean. We were at 115' by our 10th dive. Guess we need to get serious about the AOW. Certainly sounds difficult to draw any similarites between this incident and the aforementioned lawsuit.

 

[diverrex]

Now, changing topics slightly: Who here did not go deeper than 60 fsw before doing AOW?

Our instructor took my wife and I to 70 fsw on dive #4 of our OW cert where we did mask clear on a sand bottom. But it was in Belize with warm clear water. He is a well respected instructor whom I hope to dive with again some day. With the same dive charter, different DM, we went to 100 FSW on dive #11, well before our AOW. In neither case did I feel the instructor or charter acted recklessly. These situations need to be evaluated based on a lot of different circumstances with conditions being a major component.

 

[CompuDude]

I did 10 dives between OW and AOW (a long time ago), and I DID exceed the 60' limit (twice!), but by a whopping 5'. I had two our of those ten dives that hit 65'. One was from a boat in Hawaii, accompanied by a divemaster, the other was a shore dive (also in Hawaii) with only my father. I don't recall feeling any particular trepidation, but 65' is not the same as > 130'.

 

[Thalassamania]

We were at 80' on our first two dives in the ocean. We were at 115' by our 10th dive. Guess we need to get serious about the AOW. Certainly sounds difficult to draw any similarites between this incident and the aforementioned lawsuit.

It is not a question of specific similarities between cases, the Tancredi case goes to the question of instructor/DM responsibility for the safety of divers in their care. There seems to be general agreement that in the Tancredi case the "pro" had significant responsibility for the diver's safety, yet there seems to be some doubt about an Instructor having any responsibility for the safety of a certified diver who is in a class that they are conducting. The opinion has been expressed that if diver is certified, he or she, has complete responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Tancredi serves to point out that the courts do not agree with that blanket assessment. I'm not saying that the instructor in the Catalina case was any where near as negligent as the one who was working for Dive Makai. I'm not even saying that the Catalina instructor was neglegent at all; the facts are not all in yet; I am simply offering up the Tancredi case in refutation of the concept that "pros" have no duty for the safety of certified divers that they supervise or teach.

 

[boulderjohn]

It is not a question of specific similarities between cases, the Tancredi case goes to the question of instructor/DM responsibility for the safety of divers in their care. There seems to be general agreement that in the Tancredi case the "pro" had significant responsibility for the diver's safety, yet there seems to be some doubt about an Instructor having any responsibility for the safety of a certified diver who is in a class that they are conducting. The opinion has been expressed that if diver is certified, he or she, has complete responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Tancredi serves to point out that the courts do not agree with that blanket assessment. I'm not saying that the instructor in the Catalina case was any where near as negligent as the one who was working for Dive Makai. I'm not even saying that the Catalina instructor was neglegent at all; the facts are not all in yet; I am simply offering up the Tancredi case in refutation of the concept that "pros" have no duty for the safety of certified divers that they supervise or teach.

All these blanket assertions are, of course, wrong, but this case borders on the absurd. There were standard violations galore in the Tancredi case. A professional has the responsibility to provide care within reasonable standards, and when those reasonable standards are violated, then the professional is indeed at risk of being held accountable when something goes wrong. This dive was far outside of standards.

This is stressed in instructor training. If you do not stay within accepted standards, you are at risk and may have to demonstrate why the non-standard practice you followed was acceptable. If you stay within standards, then you do not have to do that.

I therefore so not see why the Tancredi case is relevant, unless you can show that this instructor was similarly in violation of standards.

 

[Thalassamania]

I was doing nothing more that refuting the blanket claim that if the diver is certified they have the total burden for their own safety. It often takes an extreme example to clarify an issue. Since we now seem to have put that foolishness to rest and reached what seems to be a reasonable consensus that there is a responsibility and a duty; we can, if we wish, attempt to place the Catalina case on that continuum and each may reach his or her own conclusions as to any breach of duty or lack of breach of duty with respect to the case at hand.