Bahama Divers closed after lawsuit

[Miyaru]

source: Dive 'institution' closed over $9m court award

"It was unfortunate and very sad, and I guess his wife.... I know they tried to sue a bunch of people in the US. That didn't go anywhere, and they found a loophole to sue us in the Florida courts. They got a judgment for $9m, came to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court enforced it. That's what it was over.

Anyone has any information on the US diver that drowned almost two decades ago?

 

[Cert1967]

source: Dive 'institution' closed over $9m court award
Anyone has any information on the US diver that drowned almost two decades ago?

This case?

Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, in the United States of America (“the Circuit Court”) in Case No. 04-07480 CACE 11 intituled, “MARLA J. CRAMIN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeffery D. Cramin, Deceased, Plaintiff vs. BAHAMA DIVERS (1976) COMPANY LIMITED, a Bahamian company, and RESERVATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC, a Florida Corporation d/b/a BAHAMA DIVERS, Defendants.​

Chronology of events in the Circuit Court

[3] Approximately 16 years ago, a young American scuba diver lost his life whilst diving in Bahamian waters. His wife, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant and Co-Defendant, Reservation Services International Inc., a Florida Corporation d/b/a Bahama Divers in the Circuit Court for wrongful death of her husband due to the negligence of the Defendants.
[4] A Default was entered against the Defendant on 22 December 2004 pursuant to a Motion for default in the proceedings in the Circuit Court after the Defendant failed to serve or file any paper as required by law. In other words, the Plaintiff received a final default judgment on liability since the Defendant failed to enter any defence to it.
<<>>
[7] On 5 June 2009, a jury entered a damages verdict for the Plaintiff including $1,913,813.00 in past and future economic damages, and $4,400,000.00 for damages sustained for loss of companionship and pain and suffering, i.e. emotional damages.
[11] On 6 August 2009, Final Judgment was pronounced by Hon. Ana Gardiner, the Circuit Court Judge, against the Defendant for a total amount of $6,313,813.00 together with interest at the applicable statutory rate up to the date of judgment.

​

 

[Miyaru]

So basically, this happened:

1. The deceased failed to take care of his own safety in a sufficient and proper manner and was reckless in this regard;
2. The deceased failed to use any or all reasonable care and conduct so as to ensure his safety;
3. The deceased refused the assistance of a dive guide which the Defendant could have provided and instead chose to dive with a group of persons who were certified divers as was the deceased. The deceased left the group with which he was diving by himself in contravention of diving protocol and attempted to reach the surface alone and without assistance of the persons in his group and;
4. The deceased failed to alert any person in his dive group that he was about to swim to the surface or in the alternative that he was in any danger immediate or otherwise as is the protocol in such circumstances.

Answer from the US justice system: Well, that might be the case, but you're too late with those arguments. And you didn't play by our rule book, although it all happened outside the US.
We found a loophole to extort millions of dollars out of you and now we've finally f#cked you well. And not only you, your entire business and all your employees too.

 

[Cert1967]

So basically, this happened:
Answer from the US justice system: Well, that might be the case, but you're too late with those arguments. And you didn't play by our rule book, although it all happened outside the US.We found a loophole to extort millions of dollars out of you and now we've finally f#cked you well. And not only you, your entire business and all your employees too.

Well, maybe not quite the way you view the case(s).

The Florida court entered the judgment.

The Bahamian court ruled

In my considered opinion, the Final Judgment of the Circuit Court is a good judgment and cannot be impeached on any of the grounds referred to at paragraph 47 of this judgment.​

Further the Bahamian court found that the defendant was accorded due process in the Florida action and jugment porperly entered for the plaintiff. The Bahamian court further found that BD was too late with their non pleaded arguments.The judgment was ultimately enforced pursuant to Bahamian law, by a judical offical of the Bahamian legal system.

All of which was bad news for Bahama Divers, it's owners, and employees. The news story seems to portray the BD crew as surpirsed by the exectuion of the judgment.

The dead guy was the ultimate loser in this situation, but the point of the news article is the legal proceedings.

Note that the Bahamian court upheld the jurisdiction of the Florida court, finding that BD had a significant nexus to Florida. (see #3 below). This isn't a 'loophole' its a finding of fact by both the Florida and Bahamian courts.

The tactical choices that BD made? Arguably poor. In hindsight BD's poor tactical choices - including the timing of the insurance third part claim - doomed their case.

A well run business - from it's inception - makes a business liability plan, where they explicitly access their risks and tolerace of those risks, the amount of those risks they choose to offset with insurance and follows their plan. BD's plan may have been off the mark.

The fate of BD is a sad tale - sealed by decisions made by the corporation's officers.

Excerpts ...

[36] The Circuit Court, in its judgment delivered on 6 August 2009, made a number of findings. The following passages reflect those findings:

2. The Court finds that the Defendant BAHAMA DIVERS (1976) LTD., was properly served the Complaint in this action pursuant to The Hague convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters.

3. The Court finds that the Defendant BAHAMA DIVERS (1976) LTD., conducts significant business activities in Florida, including maintaining a telephone number in the State of Florida, accepting reservations in the state of Florida for diving trips, and maintaining an e-commerce website in the State of Florida, such that the exercise of jurisdiction over BAHAMA DIVERS is consistent with principles of due process of law.

4. The Court finds that Defendant BAHAMA DIVERS (1976) LTD., failed to plead or otherwise defend itself as to liability in this action, notwithstanding being provided copies of all papers and proceedings in this action. The Court also finds that Defendant did not exercise its right to request that this action be transferred to the Bahamas.

5. The Court finds that Defendant BAHAMA DIVERS (1976) LTD., voluntarily appeared and defended itself as to the amount of damages due to the plaintiffs, and was provided a trial by jury with the right to present evidence, witnesses and argument of counsel.

Wherefore, the Court enters its Final Judgment as set forth herein.​

Learned Counsel Mr. Gaitor correctly submitted that there is no evidence before the court that the foreign proceedings in the instant matter offended the Bahamian court’s view of substantial justice.

In this action, the grounds pleaded in the Defendant’s Defence were all matters which would have been canvassed before the Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, or which could have been addressed with an application to set aside or appeal the decision of the Circuit Court. This Court cannot be used to appeal the decision of the Circuit Court
​

 

[Miyaru]

Well, maybe not quite the way you view the case(s).
....

I understand that you look at it from the viewpoint of the United Litigation States. And defend the court proceedings.

But common sense tells anybody (outside the Litigation States) that asking for six million dollars is totally absurd, especially when the diver was to blame for his own failure to surface alive.

As a result of the widow's actions, 15 people lost their jobs, an entire company is gone. And all that for an absurd amount of money, which went from 6 to 9 million in less than a decade. Which bank gives you those rates? The greedy widow will never see that money, but at least she had her revenge by blaming the failures of her husband on a dive operator.

Greed and revenge. Wouldn't it be ironic if those 15 unemployed people would successfully sue the widow for ruining their livelihoods? Let's say for 3 million. Each!

From a legal point of view, do you think this would have worked in a European court?

 

[The Chairman]

The US needs tort reform badly.

 

[coldwaterglutton]

If you get sued and don't show up to court, expect there to be bad consequences. That's what happened here. It has nothing to do with the facts of the claim, it has to do with not defending your company.

 

[Miyaru]

If you get sued and don't show up to court, expect there to be bad consequences. That's what happened here. It has nothing to do with the facts of the claim, it has to do with not defending your company.

That's justifying the absurdity of millions of dollars claimed here.

 

[Edward3c]

From a legal point of view, do you think this would have worked in a European court?

If you done bother to turn up and fight your case, yes.

 

[lowwall]

That's justifying the absurdity of millions of dollars claimed here.

No it isn't. It's explaining why it happened. US courts use an adversarial system. Each party presents their side in the most favorable way possible. People filing claims always ask for silly high damage amounts because that essentially sets the upper limit on what could be awarded. The expectation is that you won't receive anything near your initial number, but it would be potential malpractice for a lawyer to ask for something much less since they don't know what might show up in the discovery process.

It's up to the opposing side to demonstrate the absurdity of any claims. Since Bahama Divers didn't show up, despite being properly notified of the case according to courts in both Florida and the Bahamas, the jury literally only heard one side of the argument. What outcome would you expect?