Bahama Divers closed after lawsuit

[Esprise Me]

the diver was to blame for his own failure to surface alive.

If rental equipment failed and caused death, then yes, liability comes into play. Wasn't the case here.

Where are you getting your info about the underlying incident?

 

[The Chairman]

So "tort reform" is meaningless by itself.

You have to start somewhere. Eliminating the accident lottery, will defund the lawyers and things will start to move. Not doing anything is the crux of our problem.

 

[lowwall]

You have to start somewhere. Eliminating the accident lottery, will defund the lawyers and things will start to move. Not doing anything is the crux of our problem.

What's does the "accident lottery" mean? How do you determine whether a claim has merit?

 

[Miyaru]

Where are you getting your info about the underlying incident?

From the article in the initial post and the documents posted in the 2nd post.

But now I understand that allegations become proof if the defendant doesn't refute them. That's a big difference with the justice system I'm familiar with.

 

[Esprise Me]

From the article in the initial post and the documents posted in the 2nd post.

I don't see where any of those sources support either of the claims of yours I quoted. They may be true, but I don't know how we'd know.

 

[dewdropsonrosa]

But now I understand that allegations become proof if the defendant doesn't refute them. That's a big difference with the justice system I'm familiar with.

Based on cursory research, default judgment is common in English-style legal systems (which is why both the U.S. and the Bahamas recognize it), but does not appear to be common in other European legal traditions. In this particular case, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to a suit to participate; when a defendant refuses to play along, the case is decided in favor of the Plaintiff. Conversely, a plaintiff's failure to play along can result in dismissal with prejudice, which prevents the plaintiff from suing again on the same grounds.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here is what the article says about the incident:

Explaining how Bahama Divers found itself in that position, he said: "I don't know if it was 2001 or 2003, but in the early 2000s a US guest went out with us, a certified diver, diving with some buddies. It was a shallow dive, 25 feet or less. He signalled he was going back to the boat, never made it and was later found dead.

"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."
​

First, it's funny that he did not mention that they did not defend the case in court--curious omission. It puts full blame on the idiocy of the system with no mention of his own idiocy, which was really the full reason for the judgment. So we start with a a little self-serving mendacity.

Next, does anyone believe he cannot remember the details of an incident that just now put him out of business? He can't even remember in what year it happened?

So I don't know anything about the case other than what I read in this thread, but I don't believe that the owner's description is anything close to an accurate description of what happened.

 

[The Chairman]

he was not "innocent until proven guilty"

This is tort law. There was no jury if he failed to show. Guilt is not determined: just damages.

What's does the "accident lottery" mean? How do you determine whether a claim has merit?

Accident attorneys are a huge business. Collectively, they spend billions in advertising because they make good money at it. No, the money isn't in being compensated for your loss, but in the punitive damages which are supposed to teach you a lesson. This is what drives insurance up and up. However, since insurance companies figure in how much they expect to pay out and add 40% to their bills for profit and operations, it doesn't really affect them. No, they won't pay people who don't/won't sue what they need and they will try to limit their exposure, but they make wads of money. The lawyers make wads of money. The plaintiffs make enough money that they look at their experience as a windfall... just like winning a lottery.

 

[Miyaru]

Here is what the article says about the incident:

Explaining how Bahama Divers found itself in that position, he said: "I don't know if it was 2001 or 2003, but in the early 2000s a US guest went out with us, a certified diver, diving with some buddies. It was a shallow dive, 25 feet or less. He signalled he was going back to the boat, never made it and was later found dead.

"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."
​

First, it's funny that he did not mention that they did not defend the case in court--curious omission. It puts full blame on the idiocy of the system with no mention of his own idiocy, which was really the full reason for the judgment. So we start with a a little self-serving mendacity.

Next, does anyone believe he cannot remember the details of an incident that just now put him out of business? He can't even remember in what year it happened?

So I don't know anything about the case other than what I read in this thread, but I don't believe that the owner's description is anything close to an accurate description of what happened.

I quoted part of the 2nd pdf from post 2, which is a bit more specific.

Quick search on the internet shows the 36 year old diver died in 2002. The other results were about his wife/widow starting a lawsuit against her own brother about diner issues.

.............

I learned a lot about the differences in justice systems, proof, allegations, reasons.
I extended my vocabulary with several legal terms (I'm not native English).
I now understand that having a presence in the USA subjects one to the US justice system.


By the way, ScubaBoard has a presence in the EU. Not a phone number, not an office, but this website is on the screens of phones, tablets, computers within the EU. So that subjects the contents to EU law.
Absurd? The guy in the Bahama's thought the same.....

 

[The Chairman]

By the way, ScubaBoard has a presence in the EU.

Fortunately, when it comes to cyber laws, the country where the server lies is the most important aspect of where any suits lie. When I was sued by an Autrian citizen, she had to do it in Florida and that made it quite expensive to do so. It cost me close to $60K to defend myself and fortunately, the awesome peeps on ScubaBoard started a legal defense fund, so I was only out a couple of grand.

In addition, there are laws in Florida now about the type of litigation she initiated. It would have resulted in her having to pay all of my legal bills when she gave it up.