Diving-after-Dining...

[Kim]

I didn't claim that no-one has ever drowned after eating; I claimed there was no evidence supporting a causative relationship.

You're right. You didn't say that. What I am saying though is that IMO they'll have to prove the causative side of it if they want to bring the fact he had just eaten into it.
On the other hand claiming negligence because there was no safety diver on hand is irregardless of the meal or any other issue.
From the report though they are citing the meal and the time after until the dive as evidence of a health and safety issue.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not disputing your statement that swimming and diving appears to be more of a customary no-no than a medically based one, I'm just pointing out what they are saying in court.

 

[Sky Shark]

my two cents...it was day nine of a 20 day course...didn't the victim "know" he'd be diving/ swimming?...if it was a course, I believe there'd have been a training schedule...if it were some kind of retest, then the swimmer should have known...not enough information...no one can save you like you can...I've never dove after a "heavy meal"...but maybe twice in my 20 years in the Army, while undergoing training did I made the Instructor Sgt grin with glee while I threw up after a fine Army me and some grievous physical activity...

 

[jagfish]

my two cents...it was day nine of a 20 day course...didn't the victim "know" he'd be diving/ swimming?...if it was a course, I believe there'd have been a training schedule...if it were some kind of retest, then the swimmer should have known...not enough information...no one can save you like you can...I've never dove after a "heavy meal"...but maybe twice in my 20 years in the Army, while undergoing training did I made the Instructor Sgt grin with glee while I threw up after a fine Army me and some grievous physical activity...

I haven't gone back to re-read the article, but I my initial recollection from my first reading was that the activity was somewhat of a suprise; unplanned.