Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Sigh.

There’s a huge and significant legal distinction between someone knowingly and voluntarily signing a valid waiver listing the risks and a parking lot company posting a sign saying we’re not responsible for our negligence.

Apples and oranges my friends

Apples and oranges.

This subthread should either be moved from this thread or deleted for stupidity
 
Sigh.

There’s a huge and significant legal distinction between someone knowingly and voluntarily signing a valid waiver listing the risks and a parking lot company posting a sign saying we’re not responsible for our negligence.

This subthread should either be moved from this thread or deleted for stupidity

Actually the principal difference is the form of the document. One is called an assumption of risk, the other is a liability waiver.

Whether one or both are theoretically enforceable, and to what extent, varies widely from state to state.

As a general matter, however, it is almost universal that someone can not enforce a waiver (or assumption of risk) of risks that are uniquely in their control, when they are engaged in a commercial enterprise.

For example, a waiver (or assumption of risk) of a boats liability for a diver getting themselves bent or running out of air, will probably be enforced by the boat. On the other hand, if the dive was supervised, it’s unlikely that a divemaster or instructor could enforce the same agreement. If the problem was instead that the boat sold air but actually gave O2, and the diver toxed, it’s difficult to imagine that the same waiver (or assumption of risk) would be enforceable by the boat.
 
Sigh.

There’s a huge and significant legal distinction between someone knowingly and voluntarily signing a valid waiver listing the risks and a parking lot company posting a sign saying we’re not responsible for our negligence.

Apples and oranges my friends

Apples and oranges.

This subthread should either be moved from this thread or deleted for stupidity

you need to refresh yourself on bartering laws/ I think that is what they call them.
 
The point is the waiver can say whatever it wants, but that doesn't make it any more effective than the law allows. And I'm not sure what effect you think a waiver has outside of "the legal world."
It is done to make the customer to believe they have no recourse and as such it warts off suits.
 
No, if they throw a rock at your car, that’s an intentional tort. Negligence has nothing to do with it,



Frank, you are not a lawyer. This is just wrong. You can’t just post a sign and thereby not have a duty of care when you throw rocks on the street.

Several years ago, you were bragging and laughing about how effective your negligence waivers were, that you had effectively made it impossible for anyone to sue you.

Let’s use an example. Let’s say, hypothetically, that someone owned a boat, and they sold scuba tours. And let’s say that there was a fire on the boat, and the owner learned that it would engulf the passenger area in seconds, overwhelming onboard firefighting, and that given the speed at which the fire spread, it would have been impossible for the number of passengers regularly booked in that cabin to escape through the means of egress provided.

Now let’s say that after that fire, the owner continued to book the same number of people, without improving firefighting capabilities in the cabin, or providing better means of escape. Perhaps he installed better fire alarms, but that wouldn’t matter since even a small fire would be immediately lethal to anyone in the cabin. And not only that, the owner didn’t tell future passengers about this design defect in the boat.

Now let’s say that one day, on a trip, there is a second fire. It doesn’t matter how it started. It could even have been a misbehaving passenger lighting a cigarette.

All the signs and warnings and liability waivers in the world wouldn’t help that owner. It doesn’t matter if the had signs up that said “don’t light a fire on the boat, and if there is a fire leave the room, dumbass.” Because that owner had a duty of care they don’t have the right to give up.

That owner was also reckless. They were aware of a serious risk to human life, and they consciously chose to disregard that risk. In fact, depending on the state, that owner would most likely go to prison.
You are correct, I am not a lawyer. I do spend a lot of time with them.

I don't disagree with any of your statements as you have written them.

Your reading skills are probably excellent, but your comprehension sucks. Probably because your mind is made up. I love to face guys like you on the stand, especially if the judge gives me latitude to make you look like your mind is made up.

What I said about my waivers were that they were strong, but I would never be so silly to say that they meant I couldn't be sued. What I said was that my waivers were strong, and that I had never been sued. I have never been sued because of the excellent care I took of my passengers even when the worst happened. And the excellent boat procedures we instituted, that NOAA has adopted for their use. And the excellent dive procedures we instituted, that the Coast Guard uses for their personal use, which I know what they do with them, but am not at liberty to say. And the tens of thousands of dollars we spent upgrading the structural fire protection and installing supervised fire, smoke, and CO detection systems, and the CO monitors on the dive compressors, and the rigid diving rules we followed even though we knew it cost us business.

None of this is pertinent to the discussion or purpose of this thread. And your mind is made up. And I'm good with that. This is my last post in a Conception thread about "how we did it on the Spree", because it really doesn't pertain to Conception.

And if a landscaper picks up a rock and throws it at a car, it is certainly tort. But if a landscaper runs his lawnmower over a rock and the lawnmower flings it and it hits a car, that would commonly be known as "a landscaper throwing a rock at a car", but it isn't tort, it's negligence. And if you park somewhere this could happen after being specifically warned that the possibility exists, the negligence shifts somewhat. A lot would depend on who is/has the better lawyer. I'll personally stick with my guy.
 
It is done to make the customer to believe they have no recourse and as such it warts off suits.

If someone suffers a major injury/loss, a lawyer will be looking into it. Maybe it does have some effect of discouraging people from lawyering up over minor things. That may not be completely bad.

But there may be other reasons why you find eyebrow-raising clauses in agreements. For instance, it may not be certain what jurisdiction would hear the case, or whether it might go to arbitration, and in some places the clause might be more enforceable than others.
 
Since the boats seem to be under USCG regulation, that should include all boats operating under those regulations in the US.
You're absolutely right. They should do that.

I bet it wouldn't take 10 minutes to get the issue resolved after shipping got shut down.
 
No, if they throw a rock at your car, that’s an intentional tort. Negligence has nothing to do with it,

If he picked up a rock in his hand and threw it at the car for shits and giggles, sure. I took it to mean that in the course of mowing and blowing the rock got flung into the car.
 
If someone suffers a major injury/loss, a lawyer will be looking into it. Maybe it does have some effect of discouraging people from lawyering up over minor things. That may not be completely bad.

But there may be other reasons why you find eyebrow-raising clauses in agreements. For instance, it may not be certain what jurisdiction would hear the case, or whether it might go to arbitration, and in some places the clause might be more enforceable than others.

I understand the advantages and need of doing it for minor issues. I at one time had my tank knocked overboard by the crew. fortunately it was on station and not in transit. It would be cheaper to buy a new tank that to legally persue the boat for letting it fall over board from their stowed position. To put items like the boat is not responsible for passengers personal items is too blanket of a condition. Too many discussions end up with operators saying they do not care so long as they have that waiver of liability signed and on file. If a state requires a complaint to be files in say 48 hours it compounds the problem even more when you find out you had recourse on an issue but the time is now passed. Statements like I am qualified to make the dive being undertaken is stupid. You dont know what you don't know. Some kid with less than 10 dives including the ones for OW class. checks yes and the boat is off the hook if he is injured because teh kid know no better. Yes it is the divers responsibility to protect themselves. Yet who after traveling several hundred miles and paying some huge price to go diving will say no they have never dove in a current with a wall to contend with. Granted the final decisions are with the diver but operators are more concerned with the buck and getting the waiver than providing sound advice or saying no to them wanting to do a dive. Now add on taxi states vs other states that the boat is liable from departure to return. as long as an operator is involved there is no where you can dive with out selling your soul to do it. If these clauses can not be upheld in court then they should not be allowed to be presented to the customer as if they are. These thoughts are not just my own. Look at any thread that says ann operator requires AOW or above to do the dive. YOu may as well be telling a bootlegger they have to have a drivers license to deliver the hooch.

Just talked to my wife. It appears that the owners of the california boat are denying accountability for the passengers because they signed waivers. This is the danger of broad waivers and the real intent of why they made to be signed.
 
This is going to hurt.

46 CFR 185.410


§ 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.
 

Back
Top Bottom