Bahama Divers closed after lawsuit

[CuzzA]

Amazingly foolish. For less than a thousand dollars an attorney could have simply argued a motion to dismiss due to jurisdiction and the case would have likely been dismissed. If any court serves you with a lawsuit, you respond.

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

Link?

 

[Esprise Me]

Link?

Owner of popular Evanston diner sues brother over future eatery

I found it earlier Googling the guy's name in hopes of finding info about the accident, which I was unable to do. Still waiting for a cite on @Miyaru's claims about the death being the fault of the decedent or equipment issues having been ruled out.

 

[tridacna]

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

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.

Only a very small minority of these cases are won by plaintiffs. Remember that they’re done on contingency. Not all PI lawyers make huge $$$. Most are small-time plodders who eke out a living. The ones on the billboards are the exception.

 

[Cert1967]

Miyaru said: ↑

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.​

boulderjohn said ↑

Link?​

Searching for what Miyaru found leads to the death of Jeffrey Dacid Cramin on May 9, 2002.

The names match the parties in the Florida state action. "Cramin" is fairly unique and the first names match the case's caption.

Maybe there is more than one Jeffrey and Marla Cramin?

Anyway, this is what Miyaru likely found, plus a little more

*****************************************************

Source SS Death Index - public record
Name: Jeffrey D. Cramin
Social Security Number: 330-66-9910
Birth Date: 7 Sep 1965
Issue Year: 1977
Issue State: Illinois
Death Date: 9 May 2002

Spokeo
Marla Jaffe Cramin, 51

RESIDES IN PROSPECT HEIGHTS, IL
Lived In Highland Park IL, Northbrook IL, Indianapolis IN, Chicago IL
Related To Jeffrey Cramin, Theodore Cramin
Also known as Marla L Jaffe, Marla Jaffecramin​

Owner of popular Evanston diner sues brother over future eatery

Cramin and her husband, Jeff, bought the diner from its original owner, Sarkis Tashjian, in 2000. When Jeff Cramin died in an accident in 2002, the lawsuit said, Marla Cramin hired her brother to run Sarkis. But she fired her brother in 2012, according to her lawsuit.​

Jeffrey Cramin - Obituary

Jeffrey David Cramin, age 36, owner of Sarkis Cafe in Evanston, beloved husband and best friend of Marla, nee Jaffe; loving father of Brandon, Andrew and Samantha; adored son of Theodore Cramin and Diane Davidson; dear brother of Kevin Cramin; son-in-law of Stuart (the late Adrienne) Jaffe; brother-in-law of Scott (Debra), Alan and David (Jennifer) Jaffe; trusted friend of Truffles the dog. Friend to all Sarkis Cafe customers.​

Other links

https://www.litigationeconomics.com/PDF/depositions-trial-testimonies.pdf
“Cramin” tables at Sarkis Cafe
​

Marla Cramin, Facebook, today, perhaps with Jeffrey

 

[boulderjohn]

https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/wp...HAMAS-DIVERS-1976-CO-LTD-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT.pdf

 

[Edward3c]

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.

The one bit of EU legislation that you could get caught on is the GDPR, but then they have to prove you did wrong.

 

[Miyaru]

...
Still waiting for a cite on @Miyaru's claims about the death being the fault of the decedent or equipment issues having been ruled out.

Do you expect a legal answer? You won't get it.
Read the pdf. Read post 3.

The only thing mentioned by the plaintiff is negligence. If equipment had failed, there would have been more fuzz about it.
Cause of death seems to be drowning. Which usually follows a primary problem, but if that can't be found, drowning is the easiest conclusion.
No proof that the dive center caused the drowning, and the arguments raised by the defence are plausible, just too late. To me it's still plausible, I'm no judge or lawyer.

 

[The Chairman]

The one bit of EU legislation that you could get caught on is the GDPR, but then they have to prove you did wrong.

Not that I can tell. It's poorly written and is exceedingly hard to try to enforce on non-European entities. One person has tried it and it didn't succeed. They didn't even come close.

 

[Esprise Me]

Do you expect a legal answer? You won't get it.
Read the pdf. Read post 3.

The only thing mentioned by the plaintiff is negligence. If equipment had failed, there would have been more fuzz about it.
Cause of death seems to be drowning. Which usually follows a primary problem, but if that can't be found, drowning is the easiest conclusion.
No proof that the dive center caused the drowning, and the arguments raised by the defence are plausible, just too late. To me it's still plausible, I'm no judge or lawyer.

I've read everything in this thread. Your theory that "negligence" doesn't cover the provision of faulty equipment is frankly bizarre. What exactly do you think the word means?

Part of the reason default judgment exists is that it's often impossible for an injured party to prove what happened when the defense stonewalls them. When the police investigate a homicide, they can get permission from the court, upon a showing of probable cause, to knock down a suspect's door, rifle through his possessions, and take him to jail pending trial. That often helps them get to the bottom of things (though certainly not always!) Private citizens do not have those police powers to investigate civil wrongful death claims or other torts. Upon the filing of a lawsuit that meets the minimum standards, the court can compel the defendant to turn over relevant evidence through what's called the discovery process. However, the plaintiff still doesn't have police to kick down doors at his disposal. The worst the court can do to a defendant who refuses to cooperate is to find in favor of the plaintiff, which is what happened here.

Unless you have sources you're not revealing to us, you have no evidence the dive op didn’t do something wrong. All we know, based on this thread, is that a customer of theirs drowned in 2002, his widow sued in a Florida court, they failed to respond, and she got a default judgment which was enforced by the Bahamian court. We don't know if they gave him a tank with CO2, or faulty equipment, or if they failed to notice his DSMB when he got separated from the group and signaled for help, or were negligent in any other way that may have contributed to his death. My personal unfounded suspicion is that they weren't negligent, and this was just a tragic accident. And if they had just hired a lawyer to defend this suit right away, they probably would have prevailed. But I don't know that, and neither do you, because they refused to participate in the process that's meant to separate the legitimate claims of negligence from those that aren't. If a defendant in a civil suit could just ignore it without consequences, few if any people injured or killed by a company's carelessness would ever be able to get justice.