"Drifting Dan" Carlock wins $1.68 million after being left at sea

[Leejnd]

Well, with all due respect, I'd say it's a mistake to ascribe any more weight to anything you've read on the internet than to testimony offered at trial. Unless you've read the transcript as to what actually was testified to?

BTW, AFAIK, he never got to the rig, so not staying there wasn't possible. And performing a SS in that situation would also be a mistake, IMHO. Anyone that dives blue water knows if you haven't reached your target, you've lost your buddies, surface immediately, do not pass go, do not stop at 15'

Anyway, I wasn't at trial, you weren't at trial, I am not debating the facts (or interested in doing so). You are free to disagree with the jury based on internet postings

I don't disagree with the jury based solely on internet postings. I disagree with them based on reading many different sources of information, including newspaper articles and, yes, internet postings. We all have access to the same information.

Obviously unless I was in the water with Daniel, I can't possibly know "the facts" - any more than anyone else interested in this story can.

But I do have an opinion, that is based on more than just "internet postings". As do you.

Regarding the safety stop - my understanding is that he descended to 108 ft in search of his buddies, then gave up and ended his dive. Should he have done a safety stop after descending to that depth? That's a judgment call - one that could have gone either way. But whether we agree with that call or not, I'm pretty sure that decision of his was never called into question at the trial. (AFAIK.)

I'm just posting my opinion - which is what we do here on SB.

I do want to make one more comment: while what Mr. Carlock experienced was horrific, there is a silver lining: I have been on dozens of SoCal dive boat trips since this incident, and the roll call practices have been impeccable on every single one. I'm confident that this incident has something to do with that. So his horrible experience has, IMO, increased the safety for all SoCal divers (and possibly many other locations as well, as this case is well known across the industry). Who knows how many lives have been saved by the attention this case, and roll call practices in general, have received?

 

[ktomlinson]

Is it possible to develop skin cancer based on one four hour exposure to the sun?

 

[ItsBruce]

I was always taught to do a safety stop even if you've lost your buddy. Losing a buddy is an inconvenience. It is not an emergency.

The court had previously thrown out claims for punitive damages, so the jury was not allowed to impose damages for sake of punishing anyone or for making an example of anyone. All the jury did was determine how much money would compensate the victim for the emotional distress he sustained. And, it came up with $2 million (it was reduced because of the diver's contribution to the incident.) I've been around for a while and $2 million is far more than I can recall ever being awarded for what amounts to 4 hours of thinking you were going to die. (I understand there was no evidence he lost time from work or otherwise was debilitated.)

IMHO between $40K and $400K would have been a more realistic damage figure. (The trial court or appellate court may still adjust the damage figure.) So, the question is why the jury came up with $2M. And, my guess is that something about the case really angered it. Draw your own inferences as no one will likely ever know for sure.

 

[ItsBruce]

Here is an interesting question ...

Why didn't Dan's dive buddy at least notice he was not back on the boat? Or why didn't Dan's dive buddy notice Dan wasn't with him for the second dive?

Note to self: Whenever diving from a boat, make sure to talk to other divers and have a mutual understanding to make sure each other is back on the boat after each dive.

 

[Garrobo]

Skin cancer? Four hours? Right. I was thinking the same thing. Whatever the attorneys could think up. Anyway, the guy should have gotten something for his problems since the dive operator's employess were liable for marking him down on the logs. $1.68 million? I don't think so.

 

[Leejnd]

My understanding is that the likely reason the skin cancer claim was included in the lawsuit was because previously, in CA, the law used to require that there be a physical injury in addition to emotional injury, in order to be awarded damages. This is no longer the case in CA law, but old habits die hard and many lawyers still make a point of including some element of physical injury in an emotional injury case.

Caveat - I'm no lawyer, I'm just repeating something I read about this case some time ago.

My personal opinion is that the skin cancer issue is trivial, and probably played very little into the reasons behind the jury award. I'm sure it was more about the horrific experience of being left at sea for hours, with little chance of rescue, thinking you're gonna die.

 

[cruiser]

Is it possible to develop skin cancer based on one four hour exposure to the sun?

Don't think so. That was a stretch, but a small stretch compared to what the defense came up with. They should have just settled with the guy instead of trying to justify their lax procedures on the dive trip. Of course the defense could have been counting on the jurors not knowing how ridiculous their excuses were.

 

[Leejnd]

Skin cancer? Four hours? Right. I was thinking the same thing. Whatever the attorneys could think up. Anyway, the guy should have gotten something for his problems since the dive operator's employess were liable for marking him down on the logs. $1.68 million? I don't think so.

So what IS valid recompense for going through such a horrific experience that resulted solely from negligence? How much is a reasonable punishment to ensure that dive operators never let this happen again, knowing they could be hit with such a large judgment?

I personally am in agreement with the award.

 

[ChrisM]

Here is an interesting question ...

Why didn't Dan's dive buddy at least notice he was not back on the boat? Or why didn't Dan's dive buddy notice Dan wasn't with him for the second dive?

Note to self: Whenever diving from a boat, make sure to talk to other divers and have a mutual understanding to make sure each other is back on the boat after each dive.

That's a good question, one of the issues at trial was apparently who his buddy was. He claimed it was one of the DMs. The DM denied it. Your approach is a good one IMO. I have heard stories where the anchor is being pulled and the crew is advised that someone is still in the water

As for SS, usually are done, of course, but in my experience there are times when they aren't or shouldn't be done, depending on the circumstances. There were other circumstances here besides losing a buddy. I agree that on most dives losing a buddy is not a reason to skip a SS, but that understates these conditions. That's probably best the subject of a different thread

 

[m3zy6]

Note to self: Whenever diving from a boat, make sure to talk to other divers and have a mutual understanding to make sure each other is back on the boat after each dive.

+1
It would be interesting to know what he actually wanted, and what his lawyers pushed for.