Does being a dive buddy expose you to liability?

[ReefHound]

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.

No they aren't because until the case has been vetted a legal contract is not even offered. And if it's a contingency contract then the bill is based on the award and actual billing time is irrelevant. Of course, expected time is considered in that there are multiple contingency fee levels starting at 33% and rising higher if the case goes to trial and higher yet if it goes to appeal.

 

[Gombessa]

No they aren't because until the case has been vetted a legal contract is not even offered. And if it's a contingency contract then the bill is based on the award and actual billing time is irrelevant. Of course, expected time is considered in that there are multiple contingency fee levels starting at 33% and rising higher if the case goes to trial and higher yet if it goes to appeal.

This is probably why I'm not a litigator I think chances are low I'll ever work on contingency.

 

[Rudebob]

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.

Getting back to the original subject, statements like this are what concern me. Even though an OW certification is just the beginning of training...still, technically you are "certified". From a legal standpoint, terminology like "Certification" implies a lot. Much of this certification includes training as a buddy, both in the classroom and in a practical application (confined and open water dives).

Is it possible that an attorney can convince a jury that by being a "certified diver" has equipped you to insure the safety of your buddy and that failure to do so may constitute negligence our your part?

'bob

 

[AzAtty]

That's where expert testimony or industry standards become necessary. Essentially, the attorneys will hire "expert witnesses" to testify concerning the duty of care owed to a buddy or will look to training standards of different agencies to determine what duty of care is owed to a buddy. Unfortunately, there are very few reported cases concerning what specific actions are included in the duty of care owed between diving buddies. That's the reason I opined in an earlier response that Rasmussen is something of a landmark because a court has, for the first time, stated that a particular action (pre-dive equipment check) is part of the duty owed to a buddy.

 

[Kevfin]

Very interesting and informative thread.

BTW, if any of you dive with me, I have no professional training, I'm blind in one eye, poor vision in the other, practically deaf, have terrible short term memory, and I live in a cardboard box.

 

[Teamcasa]

Very interesting and informative thread.

BTW, if any of you dive with me, I have no professional training, I'm blind in one eye, poor vision in the other, practically deaf, have terrible short term memory, and I live in a cardboard box.

Ya, but do you have good insurance?

 

[RonFrank]

My first response to this question is with a question?

Does anyone know of a diver that has been criminally tried, or had a civil suit files against them over a diving accident? I do not know of anyone, and have never read about such an action on SB.

I do know of a couple DiveOps that have been involved in Civil lawsuits. One that comes to mind is the CA dive Op that left a diver behind. The diver was fine, but he sued the OP (and I'm sure everyone his lawyer could name) for emotional and physical distress to the tune of millions. I never found out if he won, but my guess is that the insurance company settled out of court.

The old saying goes, if you are going to shoot someone robbing your home, make sure they are indoors, and make sure you kill them!

I think it would be difficult to sue any diver over a mishap UW if a diver dies as the only eye witnesses would be those that were involved in the incident, and likely named in the law suit! :11:

 

[AzAtty]

My first response to this question is with a question?

Does anyone know of a diver that has been criminally tried, or had a civil suit files against them over a diving accident? I do not know of anyone, and have never read about such an action on SB.

You can read about it in this very thread. One of my initial posts referenced the Rasmussen and Yace cases, both of which featured individual divers being sued. I also mentioned those cases in a thread begun in 2004.

 

[pir8]

Its not usually the ding diver that you need to worry about being sued by. Instead its their living relatives.

 

[Kevfin]

Ya, but do you have good insurance?

I do know of a couple DiveOps that have been involved in Civil lawsuits. One that comes to mind is the CA dive Op that left a diver behind.

The old saying goes, if you are going to shoot someone robbing your home, make sure they are indoors, and make sure you kill them!

I spoke with the captain of the unnamed boat a few months ago and at the time he was still involved in the "Drifting Dan" case.

...oh, yeah, after dragging the body indoors, remember to tell the police, "I was in fear for my life." :11: