Diver in California Sues for Being Left

[ironpaw2000]

You know, it's baffling to me how people who seem otherwise reasonable and intelligent can consistently miss and/or ignore the point sometimes. Here's my last attempt to illuminate my position. If this doesn't get through, then I'll just stifle.

A department store mannequin is thrown overboard and checked out along with real live divers, despite the fact that it is A) not human, B) cannot swim, and C) is not certified. When all divers come back on board, the DM checks them all in ... and also checks in the mannequin, which is currently drifting 100 yards to port because nobody hauled it back in. Captain lifts anchor, moves to the 2nd dive location, DM checks everyone back into the water ... including the mannequin, currently drifting about 3 miles east.

If you can assign responsibility to the mannequin for this chain of events, then I give up.

Well, the point I am making is that I beleive that if the diver (Mr Carlock? ) is not upto the task he should not be in the water. I agree with you about the Dm and his procedure. However, that was not the point I was expanding upon. My point is that we are or are supposed to be responsible enough that we should know our limitations. At the end of the day, there were a few serious FUBARS or SNAFUS. Each merits it own discussion. I chose to follow the point of the diver and the facts presented lead me to beleive that he was not up to the dive.

Oh, and thankyou for refering to me and the rest of us as reasonable and intelligent !

Graham Wardell PADI SDI DM

 

[DEEPLOU]

One observation:

Responsibility and fault are distinct concepts, something often overlooked in our culture lately.

It may not be the pilot's (captain's) fault.

It is his responsbility.

That comes with the position. Don't like it? Then don't do it.

In various leadership roles I have held, this is the principle I live by.


Cheers,
Walter

The one thing I remember from a management class I took many moons ago was:

YOu can deligate authority; but you can never deligate responsibility!

 

[DEEPLOU]

You know, it's baffling to me how people who seem otherwise reasonable and intelligent can consistently miss and/or ignore the point sometimes. Here's my last attempt to illuminate my position. If this doesn't get through, then I'll just stifle.

A department store mannequin is thrown overboard and checked out along with real live divers, despite the fact that it is A) not human, B) cannot swim, and C) is not certified. When all divers come back on board, the DM checks them all in ... and also checks in the mannequin, which is currently drifting 100 yards to port because nobody hauled it back in. Captain lifts anchor, moves to the 2nd dive location, DM checks everyone back into the water ... including the mannequin, currently drifting about 3 miles east.

If you can assign responsibility to the mannequin for this chain of events, then I give up.

EXCELLENT!!

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

You know, it's baffling to me how people who seem otherwise reasonable and intelligent can consistently miss and/or ignore the point sometimes. Here's my last attempt to illuminate my position. If this doesn't get through, then I'll just stifle.

A department store mannequin is thrown overboard and checked out along with real live divers, despite the fact that it is A) not human, B) cannot swim, and C) is not certified. When all divers come back on board, the DM checks them all in ... and also checks in the mannequin, which is currently drifting 100 yards to port because nobody hauled it back in. Captain lifts anchor, moves to the 2nd dive location, DM checks everyone back into the water ... including the mannequin, currently drifting about 3 miles east.

If you can assign responsibility to the mannequin for this chain of events, then I give up.

Are you saying that the mannequin deserves $4 million dollars?

 

[archman]

A department store mannequin is thrown overboard and checked out along with real live divers, despite the fact that it is A) not human, B) cannot swim, and C) is not certified. When all divers come back on board, the DM checks them all in ... and also checks in the mannequin, which is currently drifting 100 yards to port because nobody hauled it back in. Captain lifts anchor, moves to the 2nd dive location, DM checks everyone back into the water ... including the mannequin, currently drifting about 3 miles east.

If you can assign responsibility to the mannequin for this chain of events, then I give up.

This is a truly remarkable argument. You sold me. This is something that should make its way to the attorney representing the abandoned diver. This would slam dunk a jury in his favor. Kudos Chud!

***
as a caveat I still think that divers should be better trained for these situations, and that abandoned dude is acting like a dork for bringing up a lawsuit. He's not physically injured, nor was the experience worthy of "emotional trauma". A fine from the Coast Guard would be far more appropriate. Of course he's just after money.

 

[Scot M]

There's a huge gap in the mannequin scenario. In that case, the responsibility for the incident would be shared between the DM and the person who threw the highly unqualified mannequin into the water.

Who threw the lost diver into the water?

 

[wolf eel]

[Scot M There's a huge gap in the mannequin scenario. In that case, the responsibility for the incident would be shared between the DM and the person who threw the highly unqualified mannequin into the water.

Who threw the lost diver into the water?]

Your kidding right ????? LOL I think.

 

[Scot M]

Yeah, sort of. If I have a point, it's about the the mannequin analogy rather than my opinion on the real-life version.

CHUD removed the personal responsibility from the drifting diver/dummy in order to make a point about the DM and captain. My point is that that responsibility did not vanish, but was shifted to the implied but unnamed entity who placed the diver/dummy in the water.

 

[CHUD]

Yeah, sort of. If I have a point, it's about the the mannequin analogy rather than my opinion on the real-life version.

CHUD removed the personal responsibility from the drifting diver/dummy in order to make a point about the DM and captain. My point is that that responsibility did not vanish, but was shifted to the implied but unnamed entity who placed the diver/dummy in the water.

No, I didn't "remove the personal responsibility from the drifting diver/dummy" because there was none to remove. That was the point of my mannequin example. But you've done a fantastic job of demonstrating my earlier comment about how some people simply cannot or will not get the point.

 

[Scot M]

If a condition exists by other than an "act of God", then someone caused it and is, therefore, responsible. You said, "A department store mannequin is thrown overboard and checked out..." You set up two conditions which applied to the dummy: "thrown overboard", and "checked out". The unnamed party is responsible for the former and the DM is responsible for the latter. Whether those acts were negligent and whether they resulted in damages is another matter.