Does being a dive buddy expose you to liability?

[Teamcasa]

Presenting a lower C-card is more likely to get you out of babysitting duty than anything else. It will have no bearing on whether you're held to a higher or lower standard of care in the event you choose to intervene.

No matter what certification level you disclose, any lawyer with half a brain will subpoena your certification records from your certification agency. Once the lawyer gets your cert history, he'll discover what he'll play up as a major "lie"--you said you're only AOW when in fact you're a DM--and he'll describe to the jury in loving detail how much extra training you have, and how you should have known X or Y or whatever, and how you completely botched the rescue, and that you lied about your certification level to attempt to escape liability. THAT is how your higher cert level will be "held against you."

You have to understand that lawsuits have very little to do with "THE TRUTH." I tell clients that "the truth" is merely an interpretation of evidence that one side convinces a judge or jury to adopt. Building (and trying) a case is developing and telling a convincing story woven of evidence that supports a particular position, while showing that a different position is a less accurate story.

The *best* way to protect yourself if you choose to render aid is to have a good personal umbrella insurance policy. There's nothing like that warm fuzzy feeling you get from knowing that your tail is covered.

Like I said, "He who is best documented - wins.", and who ever has the most insurance is the best candidate to be sued.

 

[AzAtty]

Like I said, "He who is best documented - wins.", and who ever has the most insurance is the best candidate to be sued.

Standard practice is to sue everyone then ask about insurance. One of the first interrogatories or requests for production of documents relates to insurance coverage. In Arizona, within 40 days after an answer is filed we have to serve a "Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement," and one of the items we must disclose is all insurance policies that may provide coverage for the claims at issue. Now here's the no-so-surprising fact about Rule 26.1--the lawyer who led the commission on the rules was a personal injury attorney.

 

[Peter Guy]

Re my BCD vs. BP/W (and hell yes this is off topic!) -- My avatar is from a picture taken in 1968 (?) when I dove my beloved AquaMaster, there was no such thing as a Buoyancy Control Device -- and life was good.

I make the distinction between the BP/W and BCD in that the BCD is an integrated device whereas the BP/W is component (harness, BP and wing are separate items -- mix and match).

 

[ReefHound]

Standard practice is to sue everyone then ask about insurance.

Maybe that's your standard practice but I have several relatives that are personal injury attorneys and their standard practice is to vet the case before running off filing suits. In that vetting, one of the primary things done (apart from determining if there is reasonable cause for action) is to determine if there is a reasonable reward. Maybe they are the exception but they are not interested in pursuing a case on a contingency basis and spending thousands of dollars if the best outcome is likely a paper judgment but no actual payment. It's why you never see homeless bums getting sued.

 

[northen diver]

Re my BCD vs. BP/W (and hell yes this is off topic!) -- My avatar is from a picture taken in 1968 (?) when I dove my beloved AquaMaster, there was no such thing as a Buoyancy Control Device -- and life was good.

I make the distinction between the BP/W and BCD in that the BCD is an integrated device whereas the BP/W is component (harness, BP and wing are separate items -- mix and match).

Wow Peter, you looked old in that picture. Couldnt imagine what ya look like today?........





Please dont sue me for saying that.........

 

[AzAtty]

Maybe that's your standard practice but I have several relatives that are personal injury attorneys and their standard practice is to vet the case before running off filing suits. In that vetting, one of the primary things done (apart from determining if there is reasonable cause for action) is to determine if there is a reasonable reward. Maybe they are the exception but they are not interested in pursuing a case on a contingency basis and spending thousands of dollars if the best outcome is likely a paper judgment but no actual payment. It's why you never see homeless bums getting sued.

Correct. I meant that once the decision to sue has been reached, you sue everyone involved and discover the true extent of coverage. I apologize for being unclear.

 

[Gombessa]

Maybe that's your standard practice but I have several relatives that are personal injury attorneys and their standard practice is to vet the case before running off filing suits.

My initial thought is that Arizona's "Rule 26.1" incentivizes faster filings because insurance information is quickly produced without the need for pre-filing vetting.

Don't forget, when your relatives are "vetting" these cases prior to deciding whether to sue, they're still billing their time regardless of whether the information comes out investigations or in response to an interrogatory.

 

[dschonbrun]

I was a former WSIT (Lifeguarding), a Paramedic, and now a Rescue Trained Diver. What I can tell you is this... if you feel you are endangering your own safety by getting close to an individual who is panicking, you have every right to stay away. Your own safety is paramount, because if you are injured, you can't help anyone. This argument has been used in court cases I've been involved in, and consistently prevails. So if the courts validate this defense for someone who has advanced training, one would be hard pressed to prove liability against an individual who had minimal training... even if there was a verbal "buddy" contract.

 

[AzAtty]

My initial thought is that Arizona's "Rule 26.1" incentivizes faster filings because insurance information is quickly produced without the need for pre-filing vetting.

Don't forget, when your relatives are "vetting" these cases prior to deciding whether to sue, they're still billing their time regardless of whether the information comes out investigations or in response to an interrogatory.

I don't know about that. I've only handled a couple personal injury cases in my lifetime, and one of my first questions for the client is whether the opposing party has insurance. No insurance = no contingent fee. Also, a typical first step is a demand letter, which will generally be forwarded to an insurer to handle. I think the insurance disclosure requirements of 26.1 are useful to discover additional policies or other potential funds when the main carrier is known.

 

[AzAtty]

I was a former WSIT (Lifeguarding), a Paramedic, and now a Rescue Trained Diver. What I can tell you is this... if you feel you are endangering your own safety by getting close to an individual who is panicking, you have every right to stay away. Your own safety is paramount, because if you are injured, you can't help anyone. This argument has been used in court cases I've been involved in, and consistently prevails. So if the courts validate this defense for someone who has advanced training, one would be hard pressed to prove liability against an individual who had minimal training... even if there was a verbal "buddy" contract.

The Rasmussen court actually noted that a diver's first duty is to himself.