An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[danvolker]

That probably explains why SDI /Willis is trying to hard to say that the instructor violated no standards. If the instructor violated standards, he loses, and they lose. If they can instead get people to believe that the instructor did not violate standards and that the standards themselves are the issue, then they win and PADI loses.

Someone should call Willis and suggest they argue that unenforced Standards are NOT standards....

PADI should lose. Willis should win. And of course, the ratio should be 2 to one....

If Willis wins, the entire industry will be forced to become safer...To have "real" and enforced, standards.

 

[Omisson]

That probably explains why SDI /Willis is trying to hard to say that the instructor violated no standards. If the instructor violated standards, he loses, and they lose. If they can instead get people to believe that the instructor did not violate standards and that the standards themselves are the issue, then they win and PADI loses.

The problem in that position is the number and degree of violations are pretty hard to ignore- and all they need is 1% finding of liability on the instructor and Willis will pay the whole judgment now because PADI is out ....

 

[Hawkwood]

That probably explains why SDI /Willis is trying to hard to say that the instructor violated no standards. If the instructor violated standards, he loses, and they lose. If they can instead get people to believe that the instructor did not violate standards and that the standards themselves are the issue, then they win and PADI loses.

That is a nice and tidy summation. That actually sheds light on why this unfolded the way it has.

 

[boulderjohn]

Someone should call Willis and suggest they argue that unenforced Standards are NOT standards....

PADI should lose. Willis should win. And of course, the ratio should be 2 to one....

If Willis wins, the entire industry will be forced to become safer...To have "real" and enforced, standards.

Explain what you mean by "enforced."

In this case, the instructor violated standards and was expelled.

Now, you will no doubt argue that PADI should implement a multi-billion dollar program that puts inspectors all over the world, looking at classes at boy scout camps in northern Utah and all other locations to make sure that standards are being followed. You are looking forward to that and the price impact on scuba, are you?

 

[Bob DBF]

Calling the roll is not part of the instructional program it takes to become a DM.

That just sounds wrong.

From PADI website:

As a PADI Divemaster, you’ll lead others as you supervise scuba diving activities and assist with diver training.

But a DM does not have to keep track of who gets in or out of the water when they are in charge. WTF?

I'm glad the DM's on the boat I go out on keep meticulous track of where the divers are.



As for explaining a verdict, if it could ever be done, the DM's called roll being important scuba professionals, PADI should have either trained them to keep their nose out of it since they had no expertise, or should have trained to do it properly as scuba professionals.




Bob
----------------------
I may be old, but I'm not dead yet.

 

[boulderjohn]

As for explaining a verdict, if it could ever be done, the DM's called roll being important scuba professionals, PADI should have either trained them to keep their nose out of it since they had no expertise, or should have trained to do it properly as scuba professionals.

Actually, the not only should have kept their noses out of it, they should have been required to keep their noses out of it. Not many people know that , though, and I was told by someone in the know that this issue was not raised in the trial.

As it was explained to me by someone who was supposedly in the know, the captain of the boat is responsible for the passengers and cannot relinquish that duty to someone not in his or he employment. The boat captain should have been the subject of the lawsuit, but no deep pockets there. So under that theory, PADI never should have been involved, but that is water under the bridge.

 

[Wookie]

I'm confused why Willis didn't disclaim the instructor coverage given the huge number of training and safety violations.

A quote from Willis today, they believe they have an obligation (as a part of their contract) to not abandon the instructor. I can tell you that with my in-water liability policy, I must perform certain actions to maintain coverage, but following my agency standards is not one of them. I have never had an individual policy with Willis. I don't know what the "rules" for disclaiming are, if I understand disclaim to be refusal to provide coverage. I have also not held a V&B policy in a lot of years. Does a V&B policy allow them to disclaim an instructor for not following standards?

 

[RJP]

After the accident PADI booted him for violating the required PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving standards. If PADI didn't recognize it as PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving there would have been no requirement to follow the PADI standards for which PADI expelled him.

Unless he claimed that it WAS a PADI Discover Scuba^® Diving

And I thought MY reasoning was circular.

:d

But seriously, this is why I asked the question as to whether anyone has seen materials/communications/etc that were used to describe the program.

---------- Post added January 5th, 2015 at 09:16 PM ----------

Does a V&B policy allow them to disclaim an instructor for not following standards?

Yes, there are several exclusions along those lines.

 

[Wookie]

If Utah is a "joint and several" liability state then yes- any liability means you can be forced to pay the full freight - then sue the codefendants in indemnity to pay you back.

Conconnan told me Utah is not Joint and Several, that each defendant will be assigned an amount based on their percentage of liability. If the instructor is found 30% liable, the parents 30%, and the Doctor 40% (except they have been dismissed) then the parents and Willis cough up 30% of the award. PADI has of course settled, and no further liability will attach.

 

[Hawkwood]

Pure Several Liability: Places the risk of insolvency and burden of identifying non-party tortfeasors on the plaintiff. Each Defendant is only liable for their assigned portion of damages based on their percentage of responsibility. Fourteen states practice Pure Several Liability (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,and Wyoming).