Cylinder Inspectors & Liability Insurance

[Scared Silly]

I can not answer your question. But one reminder, though you may have a defense, it does not mean you can not be sued. Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. Though the cylinder was in the state it was that day, and the later dirty fills caused the problem, you will still have to defend yourself and that will cost you money.

 

[ReefHound]

I can not answer your question. But one reminder, though you may have a defense, it does not mean you can not be sued. Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. Though the cylinder was in the state it was that day, and the later dirty fills caused the problem, you will still have to defend yourself and that will cost you money.

True, but you don't have to visually inspect a tank to find yourself in that situation. So quit diving, better yet, quit living if you cannot deal with an astronomically minute chance of getting sued.

Ok, for those of you doing visuals for a shop, are you any better protected from being sued than if you did visuals on your own? I'm sure the shop has their rears covered by insurance but does it cover you personally? Have you seen the policy?

Besides, as boulder mentioned, legal fees hit both sides. While liability attorneys often take cases on contingency, they only do that when they see the possible reward as worth the certain cost of litigation. No substantial liquid assets or insurance policy, no payday. Most plaintiffs do not and would not put a dime of their own money on the line. (If anybody ever sued me, first thing I'm gonna do is counter sue and make them play some defense, too.)

 

[Doc Harry]

A visual tank inspection says that you, working within the prescribed limits of your craft, saw no problems with a tank at the time you did the inspection.

Assuming that your inspection sticker claims only that!

Here's a sticker that claims the inspection to be valid for one year!

Its a sad state of our nation that people always look for someone to blame if something goes wrong.

No, it's a sad state of our nation that lawyers are ruining it for everyone!

 

[Scared Silly]

True, but you don't have to visually inspect a tank to find yourself in that situation. So quit diving, better yet, quit living if you cannot deal with an astronomically minute chance of getting sued.

I think you are taking my comment a bit too far. It is all about risk management. I have always joked that there should be a warning label in the birth canal that says "Going past this point will lead to death" While slightly absurd it brings home the point that there are risks in life and it is all about managing them. Like last summer some kids were using part of my driveway curb as a rail for skateboarding. I really did not mind them handing out but given one of them could and probably would turf I did not want to deal with the aftermath. I politely told them that while I understood they need a place to hang that if they turfed it might not be the best for me. They seems to understand, and probably being used to being run off, took it stride.

Ok, for those of you doing visuals for a shop, are you any better protected from being sued than if you did visuals on your own? I'm sure the shop has their rears covered by insurance but does it cover you personally? Have you seen the policy?

As an employee you should be protected if you are performing your task within prescribed description. There are always exclusions for illegal and other types behavior.

 

[ReefHound]

I think you are taking my comment a bit too far. It is all about risk management.

I understand and agree completely. All I am saying is that the first step in risk management is correctly assessing the risk and putting it in perspective. I think the risk of being sued for doing a vis is ridiculously low and not worth worrying about. Just about everything else you do in your day incurs as much or more risk. How many lawsuits have been filed in the last 20 years against a VIP inspector?

As an employee you should be protected if you are performing your task within prescribed description. There are always exclusions for illegal and other types behavior.

Do you mean should as in that's how the world should be? Or as in you know this is legally the case? Cops have such protection form personal liability but it takes special code for that. I doubt it extends to private sector employees, although it's usually the business that is sued because they usually have the deep pockets.

Plus a lot of work is done around the shop by DMs/instructors who are not "employees". If a DM/instructor (even a direct employee) need his own liability insurance to teach a shop class within the prescribed description (a pretty well established fact), why wouldn't they need it for inspecting tanks or rebuilding regs or anything else?

 

[BVickery]

Since attorneys work on contingency in these cases, they usually won't take a case they don't have a chance of winning. It's just a loss for them, and the client may have to pay the court fees of the person they sue.

Never say never. I just look at the guy who ordered HOT coffee, put it between his legs to keep it secure and then sued when the coffee (which is hot) scalded him. There are also medical cases of parents suing OBY/GYN's in FL because their baby has a genetic birth defect. So you know, OBY/GYN's are getting harder to find in FL because of this. And even though they work on Contingency doesn't mean they always have a slam dunk case. Someone could goto kid freshly out of Law School and minted by taking the Bar Exam and he has a $100K student loan just from law school sitting in his face.

Sadly, there are unethical lawyers who would try and bring this frivolous lawsuit to court to make some money.

Can you give a single example of any time in history that a person who did a visual tank inspection was sued, successfully or unsuccessfully, after a tank accident?

No I can't, but it doesn't mean legal proceedings were never started in such a case, and if they were, they would require the person being sued to obtain legal counsel and deposit a retaining fee. I mean, some doc's figured they would be immune from lawsuits if a kid was born with a rare genetic defect, yet here in FL there have been a few that were tried to be brought to trial, but thankfully were thrown out (the Doc's STILL had to pay their lawyers to get it thrown out).

 

[ReefHound]

I mean, some doc's figured they would be immune from lawsuits if a kid was born with a rare genetic defect, yet here in FL there have been a few that were tried to be brought to trial, but thankfully were thrown out (the Doc's STILL had to pay their lawyers to get it thrown out).

No they didn't, the docs had professional liability insurance as required.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here's a sticker that claims the inspection to be valid for one year!

They are all good for a year. The alternative would be requiring a vis after each time the tank is used, which would be absurd. By making it good for a year, they hope to find a reasonable compromise between daily inspections and never being inspected. My point was that a tank could develop problems after an inspection, and it would be close to impossible to prove that the imperfections were present at the time of the inspection.

Never say never. I just look at the guy who ordered HOT coffee, put it between his legs to keep it secure and then sued when the coffee (which is hot) scalded him.

Wow! The McDonalds Coffee case rears its head yet again. I wonder how many times this will be brought up and refuted before people finally realize that this was not a frivolous lawsuit and that McDonalds deserved to lose it. Here are some links that should help:

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tomfcrist]

Wow! The McDonalds Coffee case rears its head yet again. I wonder how many times this will be brought up and refuted before people finally realize that this was not a frivolous lawsuit and that McDonalds deserved to lose it. Here are some links that should help:

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn!! Why did you have to ruin it for me? I always pictured the chick that burned herself as a 30 something soccer mom wearing spandex daisy dukes.....now that i know the truth(70 years old) Mcdonalds drive thru's will never be the same.

 

[ReefHound]

They are all good for a year. The alternative would be requiring a vis after each time the tank is used, which would be absurd. By making it good for a year, they hope to find a reasonable compromise between daily inspections and never being inspected. My point was that a tank could develop problems after an inspection, and it would be close to impossible to prove that the imperfections were present at the time of the inspection.

I think that's a bad idea to state that on the sticker. The inspector is only vouching for the condition of the tank on the inspection date (year/month) which is punched on the sticker. The inspector has no business warranting the inspection for a year or any other time period.

Besides, who says the inspection is good for a year? I thought that was just an industry practice not a law? If a shop chooses to fill a tank with an expired sticker or no sticker at all, they may be exposing themselves to liability but are they breaking any laws?