Calgarian suing diver training organization

[swamp diver]

where did you get that from?

if you do a search on the PADI site comes right up
Dive Cabo. Your scuba diving center in Cabo San Lucas, Los Cabos, Mexico

Interesting.

At the time of the incident the shop was listed on the web site, then PADI removed them for at least a year until two weeks ago when I last checked. You're right now Dive Cabo is back up on the PADI site.

Legal maneuvering by PADI.

 

[t4e]

Interesting.

At the time of the incident the shop was listed on the web site, then PADI removed them for at least a year until two weeks ago when I last checked. You're right now Dive Cabo is back up on the PADI site.

Legal maneuvering by PADI.

even if you do a google search for Sunshine Dive & Charter that's what is coming up

must be more then that, back in mid december i started searching for Cabo San Lucas trips for february and they were listed
guess what, we're booked to dive with them

 

[Ayisha]

Interesting.

At the time of the incident the shop was listed on the web site, then PADI removed them for at least a year until two weeks ago when I last checked. You're right now Dive Cabo is back up on the PADI site.

Legal maneuvering by PADI.

Sunshine Divers was expelled from PADI within weeks of Cross' death, as many of us saw on the PADI website at the time. Apparently the same owner moved nearby last year and changed it's name to Dive Cabo, and they were able to be a PADI shop again. They also suddenly had a safety page which listed, among other things, their (new) inline CO monitor.

 

[t4e]

Sunshine Divers was expelled from PADI within weeks of Cross' death, as many of us saw on the PADI website at the time. Apparently the same owner moved nearby last year and changed it's name to Dive Cabo, and they were able to be a PADI shop again. They also suddenly had a safety page which listed, among other things, their (new) inline CO monitor.

they are exactly in the same spot they've been before, within Wyndham Resort, at least from what i see

 

[Ayisha]

Apparently they moved into another area/unit within the Wyndham Resort last year. A friend of mine and customer of theirs described it to me as "...They moved a bit deeper into the warren on the ground floor of Wyndham..." A local had posted as well last year on this board that they moved and changed their name.

 

[ItsBruce]

I just started reading this thread.

I'm an attorney with at least some relevant knowledge and experience. Thus, a few observations:

1. The husband is unlikely to be paying by the hour. Rather, a case like this is usually done on a contingency basis.

2. That is a good thing as the case is a pretty sure loser. A court in the US is unlikely to have jurisdiction over the dive shop. Besides, there is probably a liability waiver, which would be interpreted under Mexican law.

3 The resort does not own the shop and is unlikely to have liability based on its status as a landlord.

4. The resort is unlikely to have liability for having directed the diver to the particular shop because the shop is an independent entity. Also, there would need to be evidence the resort knew or should have known of some endemic problem with air fills. Since many other divers have not been poisoned, such evidence is going to be hard to find.

5. Re PADI:

(a) How will anyone be able to establish what the deceased was or wasn't taught? Just because something isn't in the book doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned or taught.

(b) The state of the art in 1987 (when te deceased was trained) probably didn't include individuals using CO testers. So what was lacking in her training? Remember, there is no continuing education requirement.

(c) PADI doesn't own the shop, so it can't ve liable as n owner.

(d) The shop is not a franchise, so no liability as a franchisor.

(e) As far as liability for letting the shop use its name, PADI, would need to know of some endemic problem with air fills. Since many other divers have not been poisoned, such evidence is going to be hard to find.

Now, a lawsuit against the shop in Mexico is another story, but it is unlikely to have any assets with which to pay a judgment.

Finally, very few lawyers will take a contingency case where the client says it is not about the money. I was even taught that when a potential client says its not about the money, to politely decline the case.

 

[pensacolaracer]

I just started reading this thread.

I'm an attorney with at least some relevant knowledge and experience. Thus, a few observations:

1. The husband is unlikely to be paying by the hour. Rather, a case like this is usually done on a contingency basis.

2. That is a good thing as the case is a pretty sure loser. A court in the US is unlikely to have jurisdiction over the dive shop. Besides, there is probably a liability waiver, which would be interpreted under Mexican law.

3 The resort does not own the shop and is unlikely to have liability based on its status as a landlord.

4. The resort is unlikely to have liability for having directed the diver to the particular shop because the shop is an independent entity. Also, there would need to be evidence the resort knew or should have known of some endemic problem with air fills. Since many other divers have not been poisoned, such evidence is going to be hard to find.

5. Re PADI:

(a) How will anyone be able to establish what the deceased was or wasn't taught? Just because something isn't in the book doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned or taught.

(b) The state of the art in 1987 (when te deceased was trained) probably didn't include individuals using CO testers. So what was lacking in her training? Remember, there is no continuing education requirement.

(c) PADI doesn't own the shop, so it can't ve liable as n owner.

(d) The shop is not a franchise, so no liability as a franchisor.

(e) As far as liability for letting the shop use its name, PADI, would need to know of some endemic problem with air fills. Since many other divers have not been poisoned, such evidence is going to be hard to find.

Now, a lawsuit against the shop in Mexico is another story, but it is unlikely to have any assets with which to pay a judgment.

Finally, very few lawyers will take a contingency case where the client says it is not about the money. I was even taught that when a potential client says its not about the money, to politely decline the case.

Your last 2 paragraphs say it all.

Old boy doesn't want to sue the shop because all he will get is a busted compressor that produces carbon monoxide.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tigerman]

Guess he could collect that co and sell it off to the industry

 

[pensacolaracer]

That might work. He just needs to make damn sure it doesn't end up back in a scuba tank... Or he could get sued.

You might too... For suggesting the idea here. Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stoo]

As a training organization, PADI has nothing to do with this tragic situation.

And if we can't convince enriched air divers that checking one's own tank is the right course, this seems like a non-starter. Knowing that you should always know what is in your tank is not a training issue, it's a personal one.

Just my opinion.

I think you have misread the article. Carbon Dioxide is found in air typically as a result of a faulty filtration system, or faulty compressor. The average Joe has little ability to test for this, unless he acquires a CO analyzer... and they aren't cheap. I have an Analox unit and I think it cost about $500.

I don't test my tanks for CO when I get my gas from my usual shop since he has an inline CO monitor and I am typically standing there while my tanks are filling. I do however, take the thing (along with my Nitrox analyzer) whenever I go away and get gas from an unfamiliar shop.