Catalina Diver died today w/ Instructor

[bsee65]

Question: Is there anyone here who thinks there would have been a different outcome had the instructor not been present, i.e. the diver was just out doing a dive with a dive buddy or was diving solo?

That depends. The diver was certified OW and it is suspected that she had performed at least a few dives without dieing prior to this AOW course. If the concept of going deeper than 60' messed up her mind, or the pressure of that depth impacted her body in some negative way leading to this episode then it might never have happened while she was diving on her own. Certainly, if she were AOW trained and had any experience with deeper dives, this supposition would be right out the window. There's just no way to say with the available facts what it was that set her off, so it is impossible to say that it would or would not have occurred under different circumstances. That's still a long way from placing any blame.

Next question: Is there anyone here who believes an instructor is the guarantor of a diver's safety during the course of instruction?

I do, at least at some level. I don't expect instructors to protect me from a cardiac incident, but I would expect them to provide a significant level of protection from dive-related harms. This would be especially true if those harms relate to the new material covered in the current course of study. Again, this is a long way from placing blame for this incident.

 

[ItsBruce]

I'm not quoting people here. But this is a general follow-up:

For this particular incident, it is not fair to say that but for the instructor, the diver would not have been in the water and therefore nothing would have happened. We do not know this and since the diver was already certified and was taking an AOW rather than a refresher, we cannot even infer it. As far as the particular depth, we do not know that the incident was triggered by depth and in any event, we do not know if the deceased had dives to that depth. (We all know plenty of OW divers who regularly exceed 60 fsw.)

As far as an instructor being a guarantor, there is a difference between being a guarantor and expecting a significant level of protection. If a diver is killed by a meteorite while diving, it is the guarantor's responsibility. That is what being a guarantor is all about. I've been around for a while and have some degree of skill and of knowledge. I know and am the first to say that my safety is my responsibility and mine alone. However, when I'm buddied up with an instructor, I still have this little voice saying "Your safer with this buddy than with some yutz." And, as far as an instructor being a guarantor, if the instructor was a guarantor, they would not make me sign the waivers and releases of liability.

Now, does anyone believe that if the diver was doing a similar dive without an instructor, the incident would not have happened or that the outcome would have been different?

And, does anyone who is not a plaintiff attorney believe the instructor is a guarantor?

 

[Thalassamania]

...Now, does anyone believe that if the diver was doing a similar dive without an instructor, the incident would not have happened or that the outcome would have been different?

That's a hypothetical that is quite impossible to answer and that really is not particularity relevant without a great deal more detailed information that we are not likely to ever get.

And, does anyone who is not a plaintiff attorney believe the instructor is a guarantor?

As you define guarantor, no.

 

[Leejnd]

As you define guarantor, no.

Guarantor: –noun- 1. a person, group, system, etc., that guarantees.
2. a person who makes or gives a guarantee, guaranty, warrant, etc.

Guarantee: –noun- something that assures a particular outcome or condition.

That's how the dictionary defines it. So unless somebody is making up their own definitions, I don't see how anyone can answer "yes" to Bruce's question.

Note: the question asks if the instructor was a "guarantor", not if the diver felt "safer" or had "reduced risk" with an instructor. A guarantee ASSURES an outcome...not "makes it more likely".

 

[Thalassamania]

Actually LeeAnne the definition says nothing about absolutes, the question is what is being guaranteed. As ItsBruce defined it, the guarantee was "all risk" including meteors and such, so at level of absurdity, of course no one will disagree, but we still have strong disagreement within the community about were, back from that absurdity, that line lies. The courts, on the other hand, have been pretty clear, just look at Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F.Supp. 778 (D.Haw.1993), where a scuba diver drowned during a dive from a dive boat. The court held that the death was attributable to "negligent dive planning and supervision and the actions of the dive master ..."

 

[merxlin]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The courts, on the other hand, have been pretty clear, just look at Tancredi v. Dive Makai Charters, 823 F.Supp. 778 (D.Haw.1993), where a scuba diver drowned during a dive from a dive boat. The court held that the death was attributable to "negligent dive planning and supervision and the actions of the dive master ..."

Unless I read the summary wrong (which is entirely possible since I have no law background) I believe in this case the dive boat operator was absolved of responsibility in the death due to having no control over the activity of scuba diving. There is no mention if the plaintiff then filed suit or reaped any compensation from said divemaster. So although they may have opined that it was attributed to the divemaster, we don't know if there were ever any consequences from that opinion.

The court also reached that opinion based on the DM "taking the diver to unsafe levels" (the specific depth is not noted). Should someone being taken to 100ft for the specific purpose of training for that depth, and with an instructor, not a DM, have that depth be considered unsafe?

Do you know if that case ever went any farther, i.e. did the plaintiffs then sue the DM?

 

[bsee65]

I'm not quoting people here. But this is a general follow-up:

For this particular incident, it is not fair to say that but for the instructor, the diver would not have been in the water and therefore nothing would have happened. We do not know this and since the diver was already certified and was taking an AOW rather than a refresher, we cannot even infer it. As far as the particular depth, we do not know that the incident was triggered by depth and in any event, we do not know if the deceased had dives to that depth. (We all know plenty of OW divers who regularly exceed 60 fsw.)

That's just it, we don't know the answers to these, or many other, questions that would be pertinent to a thorough understanding of the causes of the incident. With the available facts, I can envision scenarios where the instructor's presence would have been responsible for the incident as well as those where it wouldn't have mattered. I would say that, on an AOW certification dive, the instructor's responsibility for any issue that arises increases significantly once the diver crosses below 60' whether they had been there before or not. Above 60', the diver is already certified and expected to be able to take care of herself, but she is only below 60' so that the instructor can teach her how to go there safely.

Remember, though, that we're not looking to place blame here. We're trying to understand what the causes were, and if there are things we could do differently if faced with such a situation for a better outcome. From that perspective, the situation is a diver at 65 fsw with an urgent wish to regain the surface. The first solution would have been to catch something prior to the dive that would have tipped us off and addressed it or called the dive. The second solution would have been to communicate at the start of the incident to understand the reason for the victim's reversal, possibly resulting in a response that could have ended the incident short of death. The third solution would have been to slow/stop the ascent to the best of your limited ability to keep it within safe parameters.

What happened here was something between #2 and #3. The communication and attempt to arrest the ascent both failed and the result was a fatality. If the communication succeeded, the result could still have been a fatality. If the instructor had halted the ascent, the result could still have been a fatality. If you're faced with this scenario in the future, what would you do? Does this discussion make it more likely that we will take the correct action? Will we watch our diving partners more closely prior to entering the water?

I've been around for a while and have some degree of skill and of knowledge. I know and am the first to say that my safety is my responsibility and mine alone. However, when I'm buddied up with an instructor, I still have this little voice saying "Your safer with this buddy than with some yutz."

Reading threads here, one might believe just the opposite. In accident reports, it often seems that dive professionals have other responsibilities beyond being an attentive dive buddy when they are in the water. On occasion, the result is some under-skilled diver who thought they were getting the best buddy available ending up isolated and dead, or saved by another diver who was paying attention.

As far as an instructor being a guarantor, there is a difference between being a guarantor and expecting a significant level of protection. If a diver is killed by a meteorite while diving, it is the guarantor's responsibility. That is what being a guarantor is all about. I've been around for a while and have some degree of skill and of knowledge. I know and am the first to say that my safety is my responsibility and mine alone. However, when I'm buddied up with an instructor, I still have this little voice saying "Your safer with this buddy than with some yutz." And, as far as an instructor being a guarantor, if the instructor was a guarantor, they would not make me sign the waivers and releases of liability.

And, does anyone who is not a plaintiff attorney believe the instructor is a guarantor?

I agree with Thal that you're carrying the application of the term "guarantor" to an absurd extreme. While it might be the correct legal definition, it isn't what anyone has been talking about here. No one EVER said that an instructor should be held responsible to that level. You're making the kind of bogus argument that is the basis of so much lawyer lore. If we had to go issue-by-issue, we'd be here all month, but we could throw out a few examples.

If a diver actually went OOA during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

If a diver separated from class and ended up too deep during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

If a diver actually were injured by some sea creature during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

If a diver had a bad air mix during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

If a diver became narced and did something stupid during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

If a diver had a cardiac incident during a training dive, might the instructor bear some responsibility if the result were injury or death?

 

[Ayisha]

Regardless of the definition of a guarantor, we know that there is a duty of care expected of an instructor in regard to a student under his/her supervision during a course he/she is conducting.

Perception is very important in the way a scenario gets carried out, and is directly linked to the outcome. For example, if you believe that something is true, and you act accordingly, the result is the same as if the perception was accurate and that something was actually true.

It is fairly common knowledge that most new divers believe that their instructor(s) are Dive Gods and can protect them no matter what. It is not until later when we become more seasoned and witness less than perfect skills by professionals that we realize they are not Dive Gods, and not necessarily all that skilled, but are simply human, and that most try to do the best they can to provide that expected duty of care. Many new divers or divers in new situations do put their complete faith in their instructor(s) to keep them safe and have not developed the experience, proficiency or confidence to rely on themseves.

 

[Thalassamania]

Do you know if that case ever went any farther, i.e. did the plaintiffs then sue the DM?

Sued and collected from the the Instructor (DM) and the shop. If memory serves, an inexperienced diver was taken on a "same ocean buddy system" dive to about 170 feet. During the dive the Instructor ran out of air and was forced to abandon the group. I've forgotten the rest of the details, but the inexperienced diver wound up dead.

 

[bsee65]

It is fairly common knowledge that most new divers believe that their instructor(s) are Dive Gods and can protect them no matter what. It is not until later when we become more seasoned and witness less than perfect skills by professionals that we realize they are not Dive Gods, and not necessarily all that skilled, but are simply human, and that most try to do the best they can to provide that expected duty of care. Many new divers or divers in new situations do put their complete faith in their instructor(s) to keep them safe and have not developed the experience, proficiency or confidence to rely on themseves.

This is one of the most important safety lessons an instructor can pass on in an OW training class. The problem is that this mystique can be helpful in getting students to follow instruction, not to mention an ego boost, so some instructors may not want to educate their charges in this regard.