Bahama Divers closed after lawsuit
- Thread starter Miyaru
- Start date
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
broncobowsher
Contributor
Lets see, a company in a foreign country gets sued in US court. They blow it off, it's in the wrong country. That may even have been the legal advise from lawyers.
They offer a state side booking service and e-store. That is suddenly enough that the whole business got dragged into this. The sad part is the Bahama court agreed and let the US make the claim. It really should have been limited to what the leach could suck out of the state side business.
What the Bohemian businessman needs to learn from this is that there state side business needs to be a separate corporation from the Bahama business.
It's really not that different from how other businesses do it. Hog farms in Iowa need hog waste disposal sites on the farm. The separate a section of land off, sell it to a disposal corporation (run by the farm). The company has one customer, the farm. But is set up as a separate corporation in case the liner blows out and the EPA comes in and fines the disposal corporation into bankruptcy. They may loose the corner of the farm, but being a separate corporation insulates the main farm from being lost. Bahama Divers didn't isolate themselves properly.
There are so many different failings all going on here. The crossing of international boundaries turned this into a steaming pile. What will the widow actually get? All said and done, almost nothing. The lawyers have years of time on the books that will collect first. They are the only ones that win.
They offer a state side booking service and e-store. That is suddenly enough that the whole business got dragged into this. The sad part is the Bahama court agreed and let the US make the claim. It really should have been limited to what the leach could suck out of the state side business.
What the Bohemian businessman needs to learn from this is that there state side business needs to be a separate corporation from the Bahama business.
It's really not that different from how other businesses do it. Hog farms in Iowa need hog waste disposal sites on the farm. The separate a section of land off, sell it to a disposal corporation (run by the farm). The company has one customer, the farm. But is set up as a separate corporation in case the liner blows out and the EPA comes in and fines the disposal corporation into bankruptcy. They may loose the corner of the farm, but being a separate corporation insulates the main farm from being lost. Bahama Divers didn't isolate themselves properly.
There are so many different failings all going on here. The crossing of international boundaries turned this into a steaming pile. What will the widow actually get? All said and done, almost nothing. The lawyers have years of time on the books that will collect first. They are the only ones that win.
I should add other if they had bothered to contest this, there is a very high likelihood they would have won. US law favors providers of recreational services. A plaintiff essentially has to prove the provider acted recklessly, which is a high legal standard. This does not appear to be the case here on the face of it.
coldwaterglutton
Contributor
Even when the other party defaults, the plaintiff still has to prove damages before a magistrate or judge — it’s not carte blanche to get whatever was asked for. In the case of a wrongful death those damages can be in the low millions.
Much of the size of this verdict came from interest on the judgment.
A Tort was committed, a claim filed without a response from the defendant...there was no defense submitted therefore a judgement was placed against the defendant...pretty open shut case to me.
OP
I looked into the differences with the inquisitorial system we have.
So because of the fact that a divecenter didn't show up in time and abroad (outside the Bahamas), he was not "innocent until proven guilty" but guilty. Guilty since a jury somehow believed that it was the divecenter's fault that the deceased didn't surface. This jury obviously didn't understand anything about diving, the buddy system, and the standard liability release was flushed down the drain. Common sense was overruled by adversariality.
Going offtopic with this, but a while ago a diver got out of the pool, doffed the gear (= end of the dive!), listened to the debriefing. Then donned the diveset, picked up a bag with belongings and walked towards the stairs. Falls down the stairs while talking to another diver that was following this person down the stairs.
I witnessed all of this. These divers were not in my group. These divers tried to build a case against me. Long story short: carrying a heavy diveset, walking down the stairs, while holding a bag of stuff and having a conversation at the same time exceeded the cerebral capacity of the diver in question. No way in the world that this issue can be blamed on me.
Unless......this diver would have been American, starts a lawsuit back home and claims a couple of million dollars since I'm the one responsible for the entire dive operation??????
Cert1967
Contributor
@Miyaru
You’re pretty fired up about this incident and the issuing enforcement of the judgment by a Bahamian court. The tale you relate is somewhat at odds with the fact set - as defined in the legal documents upstream - but its your story, if you like it, stay with it.
The title you wrote is, “Bahama Dive Center closed by US Court”. That is factually wrong.
The judgment granted by the US court had no effect in the Bahamas until a Bahamian court took action to allow its enforcement in the Bahamas. The Bahamian court’s ruling was the action leading to the demise of the shop. The shop’s inability to satisfy the judgment - or reach a settlement in the time between the Bahamian court ruling and the seizure of the corp’s assets was the final act.
Maybe, the dive center ultimately saw a judgment enforced against it because they failed to take timely action - likely not involving their insurance firm early on - to contest the claims made in the Florida court? Maybe they should have mounted a full defense in Florida? Why not, who knows? Maybe the insurance they purchased excluded events in the USA?
The reasons for the Bahamian court ruling that the judgment was valid and enforceable in the Bahamas are found in Bahamian court’s ruling attached upstream.
Perhaps you have a connection to the dive center, owner or employees that you might share with the board?
The dive center arguably made terrible choices when confronted with the Florida legal action. The record of the Florida case details their actions. The Bahamian court’s well reasoned decision to enforce the judgment address the process of the Florida case and goes on to derail the defenses raised at the last minute by the dive center, which held no sway.
It’s probably safe to say that the dive center wished they had chosen a different course in their initial legal defense.
Risk adverse folks choose to offload risk - most often, they buy insurance. They also closely consider the limits of their coverage - does it extend beyond a country’s borders and limitations to the coverage. Operating in the USA, it would have been wise for the shop to have had an optimal USA legal structure and insurance in the USA to offset risks.
Wise folks - should they choose to operate a business in the USA - obtain competent legal advise as to their risk, evaluate their tolerance, and most often purchase insurance to offset their risk. Insurance that would defend them, and pay out, should the need arise, in the USA.
When we look over the borders of our country, we often find legal customs and procedures at odds with our expectations. Wherever you live in the EU, I suspect that I might find aspects of that country’s legal system unusual and at odds with the USA. Which is better, well for me I choose to live in the USA, so my answer must be obvious to you.
The events upstream would suggest that the assets of the corporation are likely for sale - perhaps at an attractive price. Why don’t you buy them up, hire the old crew and try your luck at operating a dive center in the Bahamas?
If you do so, I suggest that you seek competent legal advise and attempt to offload all of the risk that is in excess of what you choose to bear.
You’re pretty fired up about this incident and the issuing enforcement of the judgment by a Bahamian court. The tale you relate is somewhat at odds with the fact set - as defined in the legal documents upstream - but its your story, if you like it, stay with it.
The title you wrote is, “Bahama Dive Center closed by US Court”. That is factually wrong.
The judgment granted by the US court had no effect in the Bahamas until a Bahamian court took action to allow its enforcement in the Bahamas. The Bahamian court’s ruling was the action leading to the demise of the shop. The shop’s inability to satisfy the judgment - or reach a settlement in the time between the Bahamian court ruling and the seizure of the corp’s assets was the final act.
Maybe, the dive center ultimately saw a judgment enforced against it because they failed to take timely action - likely not involving their insurance firm early on - to contest the claims made in the Florida court? Maybe they should have mounted a full defense in Florida? Why not, who knows? Maybe the insurance they purchased excluded events in the USA?
The reasons for the Bahamian court ruling that the judgment was valid and enforceable in the Bahamas are found in Bahamian court’s ruling attached upstream.
Perhaps you have a connection to the dive center, owner or employees that you might share with the board?
The dive center arguably made terrible choices when confronted with the Florida legal action. The record of the Florida case details their actions. The Bahamian court’s well reasoned decision to enforce the judgment address the process of the Florida case and goes on to derail the defenses raised at the last minute by the dive center, which held no sway.
It’s probably safe to say that the dive center wished they had chosen a different course in their initial legal defense.
Risk adverse folks choose to offload risk - most often, they buy insurance. They also closely consider the limits of their coverage - does it extend beyond a country’s borders and limitations to the coverage. Operating in the USA, it would have been wise for the shop to have had an optimal USA legal structure and insurance in the USA to offset risks.
Wise folks - should they choose to operate a business in the USA - obtain competent legal advise as to their risk, evaluate their tolerance, and most often purchase insurance to offset their risk. Insurance that would defend them, and pay out, should the need arise, in the USA.
When we look over the borders of our country, we often find legal customs and procedures at odds with our expectations. Wherever you live in the EU, I suspect that I might find aspects of that country’s legal system unusual and at odds with the USA. Which is better, well for me I choose to live in the USA, so my answer must be obvious to you.
The events upstream would suggest that the assets of the corporation are likely for sale - perhaps at an attractive price. Why don’t you buy them up, hire the old crew and try your luck at operating a dive center in the Bahamas?
If you do so, I suggest that you seek competent legal advise and attempt to offload all of the risk that is in excess of what you choose to bear.
This was a civil, not a criminal, case. Guilt or innocence doesn't figure into it. The usual standard for a civil case in the US is "preponderance of the evidence" determines the winner. Depending on the jurisdiction and matter, a jury or judge may also find that the plaintiff or other parties contributed to the initial injury and reduce the award or split up who pays what accordingly.
If one side doesn't present a case, it's extremely likely the other side will prevail.
It was Bahama Divers responsibility to provide that information. They refused to do it.
The diver merely being American would not be sufficient for a US court to hear the case. Bahama Divers had a subsidiary dive and travel booking business in Florida. That's what provided the Florida court jurisdiction to hear the case. It's not a technicality, if you set up an operation in a foreign country, you have to answer to their law. It looks like Bahama Divers screwed up twice. First in how they set up and or insured their US operation and second by ignoring the Florida courts until a judgement had already been rendered.
All this aside, if you read the article it looks like the plaintiff isn't going to collect anything. Bahama Divers was in debt to their landlord, their suppliers and their bank. They had no boats, no land and presumably no other major tangible assets.
Similar threads
