Diver Died In West Palm Beach, Fl.

[Scott L]

I would also like to learn of the story. Just a the broad stroke of an "he is a dangerous operator" is insufficent for anyone to draw conclusions. Whether you provide openly or via PM to those interested is up to you. Scott

 

[idocsteve]

I also decided that I would let other people know about the grossly reckless actions of the captain of the NARCOSIS vessel. I have no connection to any other dive operation and I challenge anyone to identify a valid reason why I would go out of my way to make false claims in this instance.

Valid reasons?

Ok, you asked

- You dove with the dive Op in question at one time, and they did something to make you unhappy, such as charge you extra for something, or ended the dive while you still had 300 psi in your tank, or they turned the valve the wrong way right before you hopped into the water
- You're lying and you do have an interest in another dive company
- You read this thread and decided based on one or more posts that the dive Op was liable and you feel like you have to stick to your original opinion

That's for starters

 

[Bob]

I must say, that I dived with Narcosis a couple of times and they never did anything dangerous that I can remember. However, I do remember they always went out of their way to make my time with them a good experience, and always acted in a professional manner. I would think if they (Narcosis) were as dangerous as portrayed, there would have been complaints here on the board, or word would have gotten out about them. After all, it's a small community and word travels fast... almtree: Bob

 

[tridacna]

ok thanks for clearing that up, i thought it was a really horrible attourney. either way if he could bring a nice solid case i think it would go to trial before a settlement. that would allow the defense to get the most potential money rather than being a comprimise

Actually it is more likely to settle. The defense (insurance company) is probably unwilling to risk paying big bucks if as you say, the attorney has a really strong case.

 

[Ayisha]

Let's just say DD isn't first person I've seen say "I saw so-and-so and they almost ran us down and killed us" and EVERY time I've seen it, it's turned out to be utter B>S once the story from captain or the other divers on the boat gets broadcast.

Really? Are you sure about that? "EVERY time"? I guess you must have missed this thread or other threads about another charter operator who did exactly what you described above and there are many victims and witnesses to it:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ontario-fresh-water-freaks/237950-oakville-wreck-dive-report.html

It does happen, there are charter operations that leave a lot to be desired or are downright dangerous, and everyone has the right to impart information or relay their experiences about any dive op. Do with the information as you will or ignore it as you wish. Unless you have a vested interest in the dive shop being discussed, there is little reason to malign a poster's credibility.

 

[deepstops]

Really? Are you sure about that? "EVERY time"? I guess you must have missed this thread or other threads about another charter operator who did exactly what you described above and there are many victims and witnesses to it:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ontario-fresh-water-freaks/237950-oakville-wreck-dive-report.html

It does happen, there are charter operations that leave a lot to be desired or are downright dangerous, and everyone has the right to impart information or relay their experiences about any dive op. Do with the information as you will or ignore it as you wish. Unless you have a vested interest in the dive shop being discussed, there is little reason to malign a poster's credibility.

As quoted, EVERY TIME I'VE SEEN IT. No, I didn't see that post.

Dangerous charter operations don't stay in business very long.

 

[Scott L]

Generally, these suits against the operators infuriate me. We all sign a waiver when we get on the boat. We all know there are risks inherent in this activity. Nevertheless, the operator still has to pay to defend this suit, and probably ends up paying a nuisance value settlement, just to make the litigation costs go away.

Would not the boat operator's liability coverage within his boat/yacht insurance policy defend the insured in such cases including all fees, settlements and awards? Judging by the bare facts of the case it would seem to me the victim's instructor and dive shop are the plantiff's principal target. Also, an interesting fact is the charter operator is a instructor himself perhaps making him an even larger target for the plantiff....

 

[tridacna]

[/B]
Would not the boat operator's liability coverage within his boat/yacht insurance policy defend the insured in such cases including all fees, settlements and awards? Judging by the bare facts of the case it would seem to me the victim's instructor and dive shop are the plantiff's principal target. Also, an interesting fact is the charter operator is a instructor himself perhaps making him an even larger target for the plantiff....

The target for any plaintiff's attorney is not necessarily the party with the most "blame" but rather with the largest POCKETS! You need to apportion the blame, and if someone with good coverage is available, they will be the most popular one at the plaintiff's court party.

You are correct that the insurer will cover the insured but only if the insured did everything according to their agreement. Letting a diver aboard and not checking credentials etc etc will probably void your coverage.

 

[Iain Thysse]

Looks like there are a lot of "oh my GOD didn't I tell you that was going to happen" and very few " this is what I did to prevent it". You spoke to a skipper who was not happy to put his/her name to a report that should (as per your testimony) put another skipper at the very least out of a job. Either you or she/he is full of *****, or you are lying.....it was either so bad that they should have lost their license, or just you looking for a reason to make your previous post look reasonable. If the case was so strong you could have pushed forward without there support, or you needed it because your case was not strong enough. How about you tell everyone what happened and let the world decided if your views of the incident are correct....give us names so they can be accountable for there actions.
The fact that you have not done so yet makes me wonder.

 

[ItsBruce]

ok thanks for clearing that up, i thought it was a really horrible attourney. either way if he could bring a nice solid case i think it would go to trial before a settlement. that would allow the defense to get the most potential money rather than being a comprimise

Sorry for just jumping in here. I've ignored this thread because it was so old.

Really good cases RARELY go to trial. The defense settles to avoid the risk of a HUGE verdict. Terrible cases go to trial. The defense is willing to pay only nuisance value, but the plaintiff won't take that ... so they end up in trial.