Non professional divers taking very young children diving (even in a pool)

[going2aussie]

From a legal perspective, you can be liable if you knew his intentions, so from that perspective you acted appropriately. It doesn't sound like it's going to cost you any business.

By the way, paragraphs are your friend

 

[redacted]

Once you start moving the line from the established norm, where do you stop. Would you rent that tank if you knew he was going to let an uncertified adult dive in a pool? Do you take an OW diver on a trip that will involve diving deeper than 60 ft? Do you allow someone to carry a spare air on a shop sponsored dive that does not have a current hydro and VIP sticker? And, if you redefine the line for one case based on recognized safety risks, do you increase your liability whenever you fail to redraw the line whenever increased safety risks are involved?

Setting your own standards may create a slippery slope as you must be prepared to defend those you set as wall as those you fail to set.

 

[boulderjohn]

I said links to kids dieing in a family pool with family members supervising them scuba diving. We know that instructors kill people all the time already
The people that think this is a death sentence are instructors and shop owners trying to fear monger people in to giving them money. It's not illegal to dive without a license.

Here are some examples from other areas to illustrate what is wrong with your use of statistics.

Let's say that a study showed that in an average year, 95% of the people who die in Germany are German citizens. Does that mean it is much more dangerous to be a German citizen in Germany than it is to be a foreigner living in Germany? I hope it is obvious that probably 95% of the people living in Germany are citizens, so it would not be surprising that 95% of the deaths would be to citizens.

Let's move a little farther from the obvious. Some people on ScubaBoard have pointed out that in the last 10 years or so, roughly 50% of the people who have died while cave diving were certified cave divers, and roughly 50% were not. They argue that this shows that there is no benefit to cave diver training, since certified and non-certified divers divers are dying in equal numbers. That argument assumes that an equal number of certified and uncertified divers are going into caves, which is decidedly untrue. With all the restrictions in place and all the warnings in place, I suspect that more than 95% of the people entering caves are certified cave divers, which means that the percentage of uncertified dives who die in caves is huge in comparison to the percentage of certified divers who die in caves.​

Similarly, your argument about the number of pool-related deaths during professional instruction compared to the number of deaths with children being taught by family members in pools assumes that the number of children being taught by family members in pools is comparable to the number of people being taught by professionals. That is absurd. As an agency, PADI alone certifies nearly a million divers world-wide a year (all levels). Now, what percentage of families around the world have pools in their back yards? What percentage of the families with pools in their back yards have members who are divers? What percentage of that subgroup would be willing to teach their children in that pool? When you consider all that, it is likely that only a small handful of children are being taught by family members while in their personal pools.


You have made a second assumption, and that is that a random family member is more likely to provide a safe training environment than is an instructor who is trained to do that. Look around you the next time you are at some sort of dive resort and observe the average skills of the average divers. To what percentage of those divers would you entrust the lives of your children?

As I have said repeatedly and will say once more, the risk for this is low, but it is not zero.

 

[Seya]

Here are some examples from other areas to illustrate what is wrong with your use of statistics.

Let's say that a study showed that in an average year, 95% of the people who die in Germany are German citizens. Does that mean it is much more dangerous to be a German citizen in Germany than it is to be a foreigner living in Germany? I hope it is obvious that probably 95% of the people living in Germany are citizens, so it would not be surprising that 95% of the deaths would be to citizens.

Let's move a little farther from the obvious. Some people on ScubaBoard have pointed out that in the last 10 years or so, roughly 50% of the people who have died while cave diving were certified cave divers, and roughly 50% were not. They argue that this shows that there is no benefit to cave diver training, since certified and non-certified divers divers are dying in equal numbers. That argument assumes that an equal number of certified and uncertified divers are going into caves, which is decidedly untrue. With all the restrictions in place and all the warnings in place, I suspect that more than 95% of the people entering caves are certified cave divers, which means that the percentage of uncertified dives who die in caves is huge in comparison to the percentage of certified divers who die in caves.​

Similarly, your argument about the number of pool-related deaths during professional instruction compared to the number of deaths with children being taught by family members in pools assumes that the number of children being taught by family members in pools is comparable to the number of people being taught by professionals. That is absurd. As an agency, PADI alone certifies nearly a million divers world-wide a year (all levels). Now, what percentage of families around the world have pools in their back yards? What percentage of the families with pools in their back yards have members who are divers? What percentage of that subgroup would be willing to teach their children in that pool? When you consider all that, it is likely that only a small handful of children are being taught by family members while in their personal pools.


You have made a second assumption, and that is that a random family member is more likely to provide a safe training environment than is an instructor who is trained to do that. Look around you the next time you are at some sort of dive resort and observe the average skills of the average divers. To what percentage of those divers would you entrust the lives of your children?

As I have said repeatedly and will say once more, the risk for this is low, but it is not zero.

I know the risk isn't zero. And I would trust myself before I would trust an instructor with a family member in a back yard pool. I think everyone should be trained to dive but people shouldn't fear monger that learning to do some scuba skills in your pool is a death sentence. I would never let a kid just go with an instructor without doing some pool checks on them first. But it's useless arguing with Internet divers anyways

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[NAM001]

If this was any other area no one would think twice about giving intro experiwnce to a grand child. How many were taught to drive a car, wire an electric switch, shoot guns, ride a bicycle, swim, and many other activities from other than a professional. This is not sky diving. The kids i bet were probably going to be in <10 ft of water propbably less than 7'. Granted teh old man should hve kept his mouth shut but not renting a tank is going too far.

 

[Texanguy]

I'm still a fairly new diver so I see things from a different perspective. I came from a background of other extreme sports, such as rock climbing and skiing among other things. One big difference I've noticed between scuba diving and other sports is that scuba diving has a huge focus on training. Most of the people I talked to before I got into skiing said that while lessons help a lot they are necessarily necessary. Scuba diving seems to be the only thing I've done where everyone screams at your face if you aren't certified. Having said that I think scuba diving has more hidden dangers than most other sports I've done. It seems like most people think you can just put on a tank and swim around underwater. They don't think about buoyancy they don't think about decompression they don't really know anything other than the fact that "if you will come up to fast you'll die". Having said that I think the current business model for the Scuba industry revolves around lot around selling classes to new divers, its not about making people with a life long passion. Many people have talked it have taken the Open Water course and never did any more diving. It's easy to see how somebody can get frustrated with the endless list of qualifications you have to get before you can be considered a competent diver. Modern societies obsession with safety it's quite comical. I've always found comedy in the fact that people try to make an extreme sport that's risky by its very nature safe.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Now, however, they not only have to determine his intent, but determine if he is lying. At what point, does it become how to permanently ban him from the shop. In addition, in fairness and to be consistent, they now should determine everyone's intent, lest we have Anton Chigurh getting fills.

Is anyone here saying a dive shop should "determine" a customer's intent? Grandpa informed the dive shop of his intent. If something happened, and there was litigation, the plaintiff is going to ask if the dive shop knew Grandpa intended to take the grandkids on a dive in the pool. As going2aussie said, once the dive shop was saddled with knowing Grandpa's intent, that could become a factor in a legal determination of whether the dive shop acted reasonably. Without knowing a customer's intent, I think it's reasonable to assume a customer is going to use a tank for the customer to dive in accordance with the customer's own training and experience. Absent knowing more, I suspect it's true that a dive shop is acting reasonably if they confirm the customer has a valid c-card. But once a dive shop has more information, the dive shop may have to take the additional information into account. Nobody can say for sure, and even to make a good guess would require familiarity with the law in whatever jurisdiction. But as a rule of thumb, I think a prudent dive shop (or any business!) would not ignore something a customer tells them about their plans in deciding whether to do business with the person.

Once you start moving the line from the established norm, where do you stop. Would you rent that tank if you knew he was going to let an uncertified adult dive in a pool? Do you take an OW diver on a trip that will involve diving deeper than 60 ft? Do you allow someone to carry a spare air on a shop sponsored dive that does not have a current hydro and VIP sticker? And, if you redefine the line for one case based on recognized safety risks, do you increase your liability whenever you fail to redraw the line whenever increased safety risks are involved?

Setting your own standards may create a slippery slope as you must be prepared to defend those you set as wall as those you fail to set.

Good points, and I agree it could be a slippery slope. If I were a shop owner, in drawing my own line I might ask myself things like whether the customer's plans violate standards, and whether the customer's plans don't fit how divers normally dive in my region. It would be a judgment call, for sure. But thankfully, I suspect most customers don't announce their intentions in much detail. Seriously, if I were a shop owner, I would not ask too many questions beyond "may I see your c-card." Half your customers are probably doing things you really don't want to know about.

 

[tstormdiver]

Good points, and I agree it could be a slippery slope. If I were a shop owner, in drawing my own line I might ask myself things like whether the customer's plans violate standards, and whether the customer's plans don't fit how divers normally dive in my region. It would be a judgment call, for sure. But thankfully, I suspect most customers don't announce their intentions in much detail. Seriously, if I were a shop owner, I would not ask too many questions beyond "may I see your c-card." Half your customers are probably doing things you really don't want to know about.

We did not ask the customer of his intentions. He completely volunteered the information, as to why he wanted to look around for a cheap regulator, when informed that we could not service his vintage regulator. He basically said," Since you can not fix my old regulator, I want to find an inexpensive one so that I can take my 5, 7 & 8 yr old grand kids diving in the pool".

 

[NAM001]

Ts

What, in your view, would have been your suspected liability exposure, if you said that you would rent him the tank, but do not recommend that as a point of safety, children of that age engaging in scuba activities. That most agencies believe that a min age of ## yo should be achieved before attempting diving with scuba. And then give him some training brochures.

I would think that worst case would be same as before. he said she said. HOwever instead of a jury saying that you should have known better you would have turned the tables, such tht the jury would now say the grandfather should have known better once provided with information.

We did not ask the customer of his intentions. He completely volunteered the information, as to why he wanted to look around for a cheap regulator, when informed that we could not service his vintage regulator. He basically said," Since you can not fix my old regulator, I want to find an inexpensive one so that I can take my 5, 7 & 8 yr old grand kids diving in the pool".

 

[TMHeimer]

boulderjohn, I like your "statistics" post. Sounds a bit like my thoughts about the old shark attack threads.
I think it's a simple situation here. If I were the shop and knew of the customer's intentions I would not rent him the tank. If I were the customer I wouldn't have opened my mouth.
Like the mob lawyer. If he is privilidged to info. that his client intends to off somebody, he may get himself in trouble by not reporting this. If the mob boss tells him he offed 50 people last year the lawyer can cite "attorney-client" privilidge-- they're already dead, so nothing to prevent.