DM's/ instructors on vacation.

[Riger]

Walter, thanks for the link, I found it too after a little digging.

If nothing else, this highlights the importance of taking the buddiness seriously.

I also think that if one is left in a situation where you feel that you are not happy with an instabuddy's skills and/or attitude toward the dive, that that be a solid reason to thumb the dive or at least "refuse" the pairing by the DM.

I could not get my head all the way around it, but it seems that there was a recommendation to have an "inter-buddy" waiver. That is an interesting concept, and setting aside the awkwardness of actually going through that process, was I correct in understanding that it would provide a more solid waiver and protection later?

Interesting discussion for sure.

Best Regards
Richard

 

[ScubaDocER]

All, Rassmussen is pretty standard law and if you really stop to think about the nature of buddy teams (what I've taken to call "buddiness") it makes sense (at least to me).

All agencies (as far as I know) teach "buddiness" -- that is, that you dive with a buddy and that the buddy is your redundant air source, brain, etc. Once you agree to be a buddy, you have told the other diver that you will act AS A BUDDY IS SUPPOSED TO ACT per the standards taught. As far as I know, NO agency teaches "same day, same ocean."

Peter,

I am alright with the concept of a buddy team. I agree that it makes intuitive sense and that it is a nice thing to have and to agree upon. I just think it odd that someone will hold a diver legally liable for not adhering to a subjective interpretation as to what a "buddy" should do? If I don't check my buddy's SPG prior to water entry, am I liable? If I don't check the buckle on their BC? Do I have to physically check their tank valve? This seems excessive to be held liable for, but things that are taught and encouraged in the OW course. The issue in the above mentioned case seems to revolve around an equipment issue. The failure to attend to a buddy's equipment seems overkill in the realm of liability. Should you do it? Yes. Should you be liable if you don't check a buddy's gear? I don't believe you should.

Have the agency standards delineated exactly what a buddy should do? Item by item? Or is there an understood consensus amongst divers that they will "look out for each other"? If divers are being held to a legal standard upon which the agencies have established the criteria then the agency should state specific duties that fall under a "buddy's" responsibility. Otherwise, the interpretation of what a buddy is to do is subjective.

Obviously I am not directing this at you as an individual, just concerned that this is a dangerous precedent to set in the world of recreational diving.

 

[Riger]

ScubaDocER,

I agree with your sentiments and find that in Air Traffic Control, we have a similar issue; At the subsequent court case, the judge and lawyers use reference documents as the only "yardstick" to apply the law. There is little, if any, room for interpretation or allowance for "the way it is done in reality" even when things have become a norm over time.

For this reason, we have "Local Instructions" wherein the smaller nuances are published in order to give the operators the "dispensation" to proceed without risk of recrimination later.

Now I know there is probably much more legal and official reference documentation for aviation than there is for diving, but perhaps that is where dive operations should (within the physical applicable legal jurisdiction) have clearly written procedures that are legally sanctioned and have them signed off by customers.

For me the the risk is that the people that apply the law perhaps use a slightly inappropriate bias. The PADI's of the world try and proclaim that it is a safe sport, they do this for marketing purposes, the truth is that when you get into the water, you are increasing your risk and there should be an acknowledgement of that in legal matters.

I am not legally qualified to any level at all, so I may be talking through my butt and the legal eagles will, no doubt, tell me if this is the case.

Best Regards

Richard

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Perhaps the "W" in the BWRAF pre-dive check mnemonic should stand for "waiver." I'm serious about this.

Here's a link to the abstract for a nice article written by Phyllis Coleman (Nova Southeastern University). The paper is entitled: "Scuba Diving Buddies: Rights, Obligations, and Liabilities." For the full paper, click on the "download the paper" link located in the upper right hand side of the page.

Enjoy.

 

[ScubaDocER]

ScubaDocER,

I agree with your sentiments and find that in Air Traffic Control, we have a similar issue; At the subsequent court case, the judge and lawyers use reference documents as the only "yardstick" to apply the law. There is little, if any, room for interpretation or allowance for "the way it is done in reality" even when things have become a norm over time.

For this reason, we have "Local Instructions" wherein the smaller nuances are published in order to give the operators the "dispensation" to proceed without risk of recrimination later.

Now I know there is probably much more legal and official reference documentation for aviation than there is for diving, but perhaps that is where dive operations should (within the physical applicable legal jurisdiction) have clearly written procedures that are legally sanctioned and have them signed off by customers.

For me the the risk is that the people that apply the law perhaps use a slightly inappropriate bias. The PADI's of the world try and proclaim that it is a safe sport, they do this for marketing purposes, the truth is that when you get into the water, you are increasing your risk and there should be an acknowledgement of that in legal matters.

I am not legally qualified to any level at all, so I may be talking through my butt and the legal eagles will, no doubt, tell me if this is the case.

Best Regards

Richard

I concur Richard. I am a humble ER doc and am learning the legal consequences of diving as I go. This is something I just never realized was a potential issue. It seems reasonable then that if someone is to be held liable for a buddy pairing, that divers are presented the option of refusing the pairing in writing. Instead of it being an implied issue of buddying together, it seems as if it will have to be considered a legal obligation that one assumes. If that is the case, then it may be better to dive "solo" on a dive and assist if you perceive a diver is having a problem rather than obligate yourself to "buddying" with someone you don't know. What if your new "buddy" goes down to 100ft and you don't wish to dive that deep? What if they develop a problem at that depth? Disappear through a swim through at 110 feet? It used to be that each diver was responsible for their own behavior. Now it seems that if a diver has a problem, it is someone else's legal responsibility if they are a "buddy". Helping someone who is in distress is one thing; having someone take you to court and successfully sue you for a perceived lack of buddysmanship is quite another.

 

[Riger]

ScubaDocER,

I agree wholeheartedly, the litigious nature of the modern society was not always the norm, the problem is that in trying to protect yourself legally (in a scuba environment) you have to distance yourself wherever possible from others, ironically this actually increases your personal risk.

Buddy Waiver sounds like a good idea

Best Regards

Richard

 

[ScubaDocER]

Buddy Waiver sounds like a good idea

I agree. I just need to know what to tell my students so that they are aware of what's out there. It seems overkill on it's face, but I would feel remiss in my duties if I did not prepare them as best I could.

 

[Riger]

I agree. I just need to know what to tell my students so that they are aware of what's out there. It seems overkill on it's face, but I would feel remiss in my duties if I did not prepare them as best I could.

... running late for work, here is a quick response...

I appreciate that we all think differently about the same stuff, this is what makes life interesting... The way I think, making people sign waivers may actually force them (us) to think about the seriousness of the situation that they are getting themselves and others into and ultimately turn them (us) into better and more attentive buddies.

Regards

Richard

 

[Standingbear56]

Two questions:
1) The court had a very improper view of the function of the BCD - it is NOT a device to inflate and bring the diver to the surface. Can this basic misunderstanding affect the outcome of the case. Wrong facts are wrong facts - period.
2) Alot was made of a buddy's obligation to his/her buddy. I noticed there was no mention that when a buddy check is done, it is done 1st on your own equipment by yourself and then on your buddy's equipment by you, and on your equipment by your buddy. BOTH the PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT missed the LPI not being inflated. How did they then do an entry. Isn't the BCD supposed to be at least partially inflated when doing an entry to provide positive buoyancy? How did he inflate his? Each is supposed to check the other's LPI for attachment and function. To me this fact makes them equally responsible. OR did the LPI come off during the dive itself, and the defendant all of a sudden found himself with a non working LPI. This puts one heck of a slant on it IMHO.
A court acting on improper facts, and the fact that the buddy check was not done properly by BOTH parties being left unchallanged is scary to me. How does that saying go....."Don't confuse me with the facts"

 

[Thalassamania]

Courts can only work on the competing "facts" that opposing consul present. In this case the failure was not on the part of the court but on the part of the lawyer.