Disturbing trend in diving?

[Leatherboot69]

In the UK at least, there is no legal compulsion to attempt to help. Any claim of negligence would be tested against ‘what would someone with a similar level of experience be reasonably expected to have done in the same circumstances?’.

 

[dmaziuk]

I hear in these United States of Litigation there's also concerns about blame games after an unsuccessful attempt to help.

 

[Nemrod]

Hi @Nemrod

I log my dives because I like to and it makes me happy. I have gone back to them many times, for myself and for others.

You remember your seawater aspiration, nearly drowning and having pneumonia. I remember when I was hit by a boat in Delray during a summer squall. Luckily, for both of us, most of the memories are much more pleasant than those

LOL . Yeah. That dive in Jupiter Ledge where my dh regulator filled with water and then shot it down my throat was quite the surprise and not an exaggeration in any way. The pneumonia from seawater inspiration and the blackout, so nice. What fun, maybe I will try to do that again---NOT!!!!!!!!! I was told those duble hose things would try to kill me and they was right and it did near about. And I do not need a log to remind me of that . I am absolutely lucky to be here.

I wish I had kept a log and put pictures from each dive in it. That would be fun. I might would have left that one out of the official record .

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Your post sounds like what you want to be true because it makes sense and it's upsetting to believe there are things in the world that defy logic and common sense.

But there are.

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

 

[boulderjohn]

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

According to the study cited in post

They can try but it doesn't mean they are going to win.
And then there would be my counter suit.

According to the 2008 study he cited in post 328, it has never even been tried.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

According to the study cited in post

According to the 2008 study he cited in post 328, it has never even been tried.

It's asinine is what it is.
Total waste of time.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

LOL . Yeah. That dive in Jupiter Ledge where my dh regulator filled with water and then shot it down my throat was quite the surprise and not an exaggeration in any way. The pneumonia from seawater inspiration and the blackout, so nice. What fun, maybe I will try to do that again---NOT!!!!!!!!! I was told those duble hose things would try to kill me and they was right and it did near about. And I do not need a log to remind me of that . I am absolutely lucky to be here.

I wish I had kept a log and put pictures from each dive in it. That would be fun. I might would have left that one out of the official record .

Yes, this was the dive that took Nemrod out of our “vintage diving community.” I don’t think he’s used a double hose regulator since. Nemrod, we miss you and won’t hold you to using a double hose regulator again, but there is a lot of single hose diving to be discussed too in the vintage forums. We just had a discussion of the “R-valve,” and restrictor orifices for use in the early 1960s, for instance.

To get this back on track, divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive, rather than a Divemaster (DM). Those today who are dependent on a DM for their no decompression limits (NDL) and other safety matters really are not competent divers, at least in the “vintage” sense of diving.

SeaRat

 

[Belzelbub]

Three words, which you then demonstrate that you really don't get it.

Find yourself a six pack and rent the whole boat. That way you won't get inconvenienced.

Actually, I do get it. For me, this is all theoretical. I dive nearly exclusively off of private boats. I have inconvenienced myself in doing dives off my own boat with new divers. I did that willingly, and will again. The difference is that it was my choice, and I was 100% on board with doing these dives with these newer divers.

A dive op simply needs to make it clear what to expect and try to group with similar experience. If the dive op is one where it’s a single group led by a DM, then I know what to expect. If it’s smaller groups (buddies, or even solo) and a DM is optional (or not available), then I know this is likely one I can dive more of my own dive.

 

[boulderjohn]

Read it again more carefully.

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​

 

[jborg]

To get this back on track, divers of yesteryear used their J-valves in fairly shallow water to determine when to end a dive, rather than a Divemaster (DM). Those today who are dependent on a DM for their no decompression limits (NDL) and other safety matters really are not competent divers, at least in the “vintage” sense of diving.

While I see what you're saying, I kinda find the premise a bit funny. The mark of a competent diver is to dive shallowly until they're out of air, and then ascend. The incompetent diver, on the other hand, ends the dive when the DM calls it or, presumably, when hitting their reserve as they will have an SPG and monitor their air. Potato, tomato.