dive professional responsibilities

[dumpsterDiver]

If the guy is stupid enough to tell you, then you really can't let him dive like that. Simple as that.

You don't want to go down the path of violating standards, because sooner or later someone IS going to get hurt around you, and even if the accident is unrelated to any standards or anything that you could control, you don't want there to be any question about your adherence to standards.

 

[del_mo]

Thanks for the responses. I can see from the opinions that maybe there isn't one correct answer. There is the common sense answer, the legal answer and probably a couple of other categories of answers. It just seems to me the guy was risking so much more than just HIS health. And when a divers irresponsibilty intrudes onto others, then actions should be taken to control the behavior.

I like what DD just said. While there are standards to follow, they are not a catchall for everything. While I wouldn't want there to be scubapolice per se, sometimes some of us need to be saved from ourselves. Just deciding where the line is will be tough.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Thanks for the responses. I can see from the opinions that maybe there isn't one correct answer. There is the common sense answer, the legal answer and probably a couple of other categories of answers.

There ye go!
There are many answers, depending on the participants. An inoperable SPG is no more than a minor inconvenience for some under some circumstances... but there ain't too many of us left
Assuming no on-site repair or spare SPG available, (unlikely as I always carry a complete extra reg - in parts - on any live-aboard I'm on, and I'm not alone in that practice) if a diver not in my group did that to me on a live-aboard, I would really be ticked, because it would put me between a rock and a hard place.
I would have no right or authority to prevent him from diving, but as a dive professional with knowledge of the situation I would now have increased liability from his acknowledged equipment deficiency. If the captain wouldn't "ground" him, what are my options?
1. I could tag along with him and his buddy, cramping my own style.
2. I could put my own SPG on his regulator and modify my profiles to "old ways."
3. I could trust to luck that this fellow wouldn't have any problems.
4. I could give him my SPG and not dive myself.
I'd probably settle on #2, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Option 4 is in there just for others to contemplate ... I ain't stayin' out of the water.
Rick

 

[MikeFerrara]

I think Rick brought up a good point...being that you can't allow or dis-allow anything unless you somehow are in a position of authority over the diver.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm thinking the more authority you have, the greater the duty of care and the greater the liability.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm thinking the more authority you have, the greater the duty of care and the greater the liability.

In this litiguous land, "duty of care" and "liability" should track together, and all other things being equal they would. But the reality is that "liability" tracks much more closely with the depth of your pockets than anything else; if you have the deepest pockets then you'll be the principle target no matter how thin the thread of duty.
Rick

 

[Sperbonzo]

In this litiguous land, "duty of care" and "liability" should track together, and all other things being equal they would. But the reality is that "liability" tracks much more closely with the depth of your pockets than anything else; if you have the deepest pockets then you'll be the principle target no matter how thin the thread of duty.
Rick

BINGO! YOU WIN A KUPI DOLL!

That is the most accurate description of legal liability as it exists in the US today.

 

[paulwall]

But, there are also good reasons why courts in nearly every state have evolved to refuse to enforce a liability waiver for gross negligence

Whoops, I just re-read the post. Sorry, you said "gross" negligence. Much different than the multi-million $ hot-coffee burn case.

 

[Gombessa]

Because judges are former attorneys, and are "helping out their own" 33% at a time?

Lol, that's one way to look at it

 

[Rick Murchison]

FYI, an ambulence(sic) chaser is a lawyer who actively solicits clients by seeking out people who are injured...

I would submit that "ambulance chasers" first seek a pile of money to go after. If there's no pile of money (the guy who whacked you, for example, is an uninsured motorist with no assets) they ain't going to bother seeking you out, or seeking "justice" on your behalf - unless, of course, you want to pay for it.
Rick

 

[Gombessa]

I would submit that "ambulance chasers" first seek a pile of money to go after. If there's no pile of money (the guy who whacked you, for example, is an uninsured motorist with no assets) they ain't going to bother seeking you out, or seeking "justice" on your behalf - unless, of course, you want to pay for it.
Rick

Well, thanfully many state laws and the ABA ethics rules are a couple of steps ahead of you--ambulance chasing is a violation and subject to sanction (and potentially civil liability as well, I would imagine). So it shouldn't be happening in the first place, and if you see it you can report them to the state's bar association.

Not to draw another legal tangent out of the main thread of course. My gut feeling is that the dive op should have a set policy as to when a diver may or may not dive. They want to make sure you have at least 500psi at the end of a dive, let 'em, as long as they make it clear to potential customers. If they want to prevent you from diving without an SPG, same. If they take the "taxi" approach, let people know, and let them take charge of their own fate.

My only concern with the example is the impact on the diver's buddy. For instance, I wouldn't be comfortable diving with an SPG-less buddy just because the dive boat op says it's OK. But that's not really the dive boat's problem, rather a burden placed on the buddy by the equipmentless diver.