Disturbing trend in diving?

[LI-er]

The first case you cited was one I discussed in detail in Post #341. It does not support your case, as I explained.

The second one focuses on another case that was also covered in the previous document and does not support your case.

You still have not provided a single example of a randomly assigned buddy being sued, successfully or unsuccessfully.

Once again, I never said nor implied that there was a successful outcome for the plaintiff in a buddy diving lawsuit. No clue where you got the idea that I did and why you persist and deny despite me clearly pointing out your error and posting links to several examples of lawsuits involving buddies including a screenshot of a case.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

I'll say this one last time. I never said nor implied that there was a successful outcome for the plaintiff. No clue where you got the idea that I did and why you persist and deny despite me clearly pointing out your error and posting links to several examples of lawsuits involving buddies including a screenshot of a case. I can't possibly be more clear.

let it go already

 

[boulderjohn]

Once again, I never said nor implied that there was a successful outcome for the plaintiff in a buddy diving lawsuit. No clue where you got the idea that I did and why you persist and deny despite me clearly pointing out your error and posting links to several examples of lawsuits involving buddies including a screenshot of a case.

Where in the quote did I specify a successful outcome? Note where I wrote, "You still have not provided a single example of a randomly assigned buddy being sued, successfully or unsuccessfully."

You did not post any example of "randomly selected" buddies.

Your screenshot was a fragment of an example that I examined in detail to show that it was not what you were claiming it to be. They were not randomly selected buddies.

This very frustrating discussion, with all your bobbing and weaving, has had a definite benefit, at least for me. When you first wrote about multiple lawsuits in America over randomly selected buddies, I was pretty sure that there was no such thing. Now I am not only absolutely convinced there was no such thing, I am convinced there is nothing to worry about with being a buddy of any kind (other than a professional with a duty to care).

 

[LI-er]

let it go already

This isn't about diving, and it isn't even about a lawsuit. Some people refuse to accept anything that is contrary to their predefined flawed line of reasoning despite clear and concrete examples and multiple attempts to explain a simple, basic concept.

What a waste of time.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

Circa 1998 - I was on Oahu, diving the YO wreck on the Atlantis submersible tour route basically off Waikiki. The crew asked me to buddy up with a gal who was a novice diver but certified to dive 90 feet deep. I agreed to buddy with her.

On the bottom somewhere around 90 fsw she started ascending, rather quickly. I grabbed her harness, dumped gas and basically rode her to the surface, dumping gas while her BCD was auto inflating.

I have had tort lawyers tell me that had she been injured or worse that I could have easily been named in a wrongful death lawsuit.

Clearly as @boulderjohn has stated no such action is on record. But I think these slimy ambulance chasing SOBs will eventually file such a suit.

 

[LI-er]

Clearly as @boulderjohn has stated no such action is on record.

I posted an example of a diver who was sued by the estate of an instabuddy because he panicked and refused to share his gas. Scroll back a few pages, I'm not going to post it for a 3rd time.

You're welcome.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

I posted an example

My apologies. I missed it.

 

[boulderjohn]

I posted an example of a diver who was sued by the estate of an instabuddy because he panicked and refused to share his gas. Scroll back a few pages, I'm not going to post it for a 3rd time.

You're welcome.

For maybe the fourth time, I will repeat that I went over that case in depth on post #341. Since you won;t look at it, I will copy and paste what I wrote there:
........................
Okay, let's talk about it, the closest case cited to your claim that randomly assigned buddies have been successfully sued. Note first that the suit was NOT successful.

I. The case was used to illustrate this point (page 83):
Under this theory, "by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury."47

II. The two were not randomly selected buddies.

III. In the incident, one of them went out of air and tried to take the buddy's regulator to buddy breathe. The buddy panicked and fought off that attempt. The OOA diver drowned.

IV. Here is the analysis of the incident by the study's author:
The reasoning in Yace relied on the California Supreme Court's analogy to other sports where participants are not liable to each other for ordinary careless conduct committed during the game.55 Instead, a coparticipant only breaches his duty of care if he "intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport."56

While there may be circumstances where a diver's negligent acts might increase the risks to his buddy and give rise to a duty of due care, the court found this was not true during an underwater emergency: "Unlike most other sports, the possibility of a life-threatening emergency in scuba diving is apparent, and indeed anticipated. Just as an emergency problem with air supply is itself an inherent risk of the sport, so also is the reaction to that emergency of one's diving buddy."57 In other words, plaintiffs' action was barred by the primary assumption of risk defense because panic constitutes an inherent risk of diving. Because Dushane panicked, or suffered "a sudden overpowering fright," his behavior could not "be characterized as careless, much less as reckless or intentional" so as to overcome the doctrine.58

 

[boulderjohn]

Clearly as @boulderjohn has stated no such action is on record. But I think these slimy ambulance chasing SOBs will eventually file such a suit.

I am not sure.

Read the analysis Li-er provided the first time. The author, who clearly believes there is a danger, tries to figure out why there aren't any such cases and predicts that someday there will be some. That was in 2008. It does not appear there has been any in the ensuing 17 years.

The second Undercurrent article is similarly puzzled. Why aren't there any cases?

I got the answer some years ago when my son was injured and we tried a couple of different attorneys about starting a suit. They refused. Why? The law was clearly against us, and they only get paid if they win the case. If you read through the first article again, you will clearly see that the law works against the liability.

Instead, a coparticipant only breaches his duty of care if he "intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport."56

Personal injury lawyers only collect if they win the case. If they don't think they are going to win, they won't file the case. The track record so far shows clearly that they aren't going to win such a case, so they aren't going to try.

 

[LI-er]

II. The two were not randomly selected buddies.

The two "agreed to buddy for the day". They were previously unknown to each other and therefore for all practical purposes are equivalent to randomly selected buddies.

You keep going on about there being no such cases then you post that these cases which obviously do exist were unsuccessful. The lack of success remains irrelevant to our discussion as I never implied, suggested nor stated that they were successful.

In several cited cases, after a lawsuit was filed, and the defendant had to incur the stress, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of defending themselves, the suit was ultimately found to be without merit.

Exactly what I posted initially.