"Drifting Dan" Carlock wins $1.68 million after being left at sea

[UnderSeaBumbleBee]

I don't have any problem with the finding of negligence (or contributory negligence for that matter), but the size of jury awards in the US never ceases to astonish me. $1.68 million for 5 hours floating around at sea? That is a good day's work. Tell me there isn't anyone on the board who wouldn't take that deal.

But for that Boy Scout kid playing with binoculars, it would have been more than 5 hours and likely his last hours of life.

How much is someone's life worth? If he would have died would it then be reasonable?

Did the shop that chartered the boat have to pay any part of the damages awarded? I do think they were at fault and should share a portion if not a major portion of the damages.

 

[leabre]

Is it possible he tried to descend, got disoriented when he couldn't equalize, swam the wrong direction, and then surfaced in the fog too far away for the boat to see him, and maybe in a direction they weren't looking? I'm not trying to rewrite history, and unless we get his dive computer info we'll never really know, but there are a number of scenarios that would put at least some of the blame on him.

It is possible and in fact, what I think is *closer* to what actually happened. I agree with this *possibility*. In this day and age, where people rarely accept responsbility for their action or admit as much, why should he say anything different than what he did so as to get the money he (or his attorney) wanted?

Not knowing the plaintiff or not having been on the boat at the time this happened and having not read the official transcripts, we'll never really know for sure. But... because I also think this is very close to what may have actually happened, I also think the money awared was grossly too much -- but it will help keep dive ops hopefully more diligent in the future. My experience with southern california dive ops is that they already are diligent but I started diving 2 years after this incident happened, so I don't know what it was like back then.

 

[Leejnd]

Here is where I think you have some blinders on. He would have us believe that he tried to descend, had trouble equalizing, was able to equalize but lost his buddies, them went to 108 ft looking for them (as you stated above you thumbed your dive immediately when there was a problem), then ascended (doing a safety stop), all in 15 minutes? All the while he was the only one the current "swept out to sea". Have you even seen a current only affect one diver? Why did everyone else surface where they should have?

Is it possible he tried to descend, got disoriented when he couldn't equalize, swam the wrong direction, and then surfaced in the fog too far away for the boat to see him, and maybe in a direction they weren't looking? I'm not trying to rewrite history, and unless we get his dive computer info we'll never really know, but there are a number of scenarios that would put at least some of the blame on him.

Sorry, I neglected to respond to the rest of your post...

I think everyone else probably surfaced where they should have because they made it to the rig. They didn't have problems on the descent, didn't lose their buddies and didn't then make a descent down to 108 ft to find them.

But I will say that I now believe that this descent to 108 ft was ill-advised. He should have tried for no more than 1 minute to find his buddies, and then surfaced immediately. Would that have changed the outcome, though? Hard to say. Keep in mind, the DM still marked him in for the roll call, even though he wasn't onboard. That is simply a fact. Although perhaps he would have surfaced closer to the boat if he hadn't done the search for the buddies. On the other hand, perhaps he wouldn't - perhaps the boat simply wasn't looking for anyone after only 15 minutes. And perhaps, given the foggy day and the fact that he hadn't reached the rig structure, he still might have floated out with the current. This is all pure speculation, of course.

So, given this discussion, I'll amend my opinion to say that the jury's assignment of...what was it, 15%?...of blame to him, was probably justified. Imagine that - actual justice served by a jury?

 

[Leejnd]

Okay, well I just learned that I need to make an important statement here:

My opinions posted in this thread are MINE ALONE and have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else - not my dive buddies, my friends, my family, my dog, any DMs I know, and boats I dive on, or boat owners that I know (and there are actually several). I came to my opinions by myself, based on copious reading of the available information on this incident - which I openly admit is limited, since I wasn't a) on the boat that day, or b) floating with the diver lost at sea, or c) in the courtroom for this case.

My opinions are just that - opinions. I am not an expert in anything here - I'm not a lawyer, not a dive boat owner, not a DM. What I am is a private diver, concerned with the happenings in both my local dive community, as well as the global dive industry.

My opinions do not, and should not, reflect on anyone else. Please don't use them as such. If someone has a problem with my opinions, feel free to talk to me personally. But do not accuse anyone else of complicity in forming MY opinions, or condemn someone else because I have them, or have posted them.

I have strong opinions about this case, as do many others. I hold no animosity to anyone whom might feel differently. All we're doing in here is talking about it, for the purpose of increasing knowledge and understanding - or perhaps, in some cases, just to say what we think. That's what people do on message boards.

 

[merxlin]

Okay, well I just learned that I need to make an important statement here:

My opinions posted in this thread are MINE ALONE and have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else - not my dive buddies, my friends, my family, my dog, any DMs I know, and boats I dive on, or boat owners that I know (and there are actually several). I came to my opinions by myself, based on copious reading of the available information on this incident - which I openly admit is limited, since I wasn't a) on the boat that day, or b) floating with the diver lost at sea, or c) in the courtroom for this case.

My opinions are just that - opinions. I am not an expert in anything here - I'm not a lawyer, not a dive boat owner, not a DM. What I am is a private diver, concerned with the happenings in both my local dive community, as well as the global dive industry.

My opinions do not, and should not, reflect on anyone else. Please don't use them as such. If someone has a problem with my opinions, feel free to talk to me personally. But do not accuse anyone else of complicity in forming MY opinions, or condemn someone else because I have them, or have posted them.

I have strong opinions about this case, as do many others. I hold no animosity to anyone whom might feel differently. All we're doing in here is talking about it, for the purpose of increasing knowledge and understanding - or perhaps, in some cases, just to say what we think. That's what people do on message boards.

What she said.

And I appreciate your responses and position on this. As you said, we all have our opinions and take on this. I do agree that most boats are safer now because of this incident, so maybe some good has come out of it for someone other than Dan.

 

[Leejnd]

What she said.

And I appreciate your responses and position on this. As you said, we all have our opinions and take on this. I do agree that most boats are safer now because of this incident, so maybe some good has come out of it for someone other than Dan.

Thanks Mike. One thing I take personal joy in, is when I can show that people can disagree on things - even really important things - and hold no animosity towards each other. We can disagree, and not be mad at each other.

I've HAD to do this, or most of us in my large, extended, Italian-American family would have stopped speaking to each other decades ago! Our political viewpoints run the entire gammet, from both extremes, and everything in between. But we all still love each other. We're even able to discuss politics at family gatherings, and still give each other goodbye kisses on the way out.

Anyway, I also want to say that I do hope that both the dive boat operation, and the dive shop, are able to weather this. They are both excellent companies. Would I dive with the DM who screwed the pooch on the roll calls? Not if you paid me. But I would dive with either company. I pray they come through this okay.

 

[ItsBruce]

I forgot which post I'm responding to.

As far as the law is concerned, an employer is responsible for the negligent acts of an employee when those acts are within the course and scope of employment. Period. It is as simple as that. The employer need not have been negligent. It is just a matter of who shoulders the risk of a negligent act. If the employer is negligent in hiring an idiot, that is a whole different story and a whole different liability. Whomever employed the DM is liable for the DM's negligence, regardless of how careful the employer may have been.

According to defense counsel, the court agreed that the shop's only liability flowed solely from having employed the DM.

As far as the boat, the law is very simple: If it happened, its the boat's responsibility unless the diver did it to himself intentionally.

As I've said before, the award was much higher than I think was justified. However, there was, at a minimum, neglect on the part of the DM and that implicated everyone else. Even if the DM checked Dan off as having boarded the boat because someone else answered for him, then there was something wrong with a procedure that allows for that. And, the fact it happened twice seems to put the nail in the proverbial coffin.

The only fault I can place on the diver is for not having arranged for a proper buddy team. It is one thing to get an insta-buddy on a dive boat. It is a whole different thing to ask a buddy team if you can "tag along."

 

[ItsBruce]

I mostly agree with LeeAnne. I'd dive from with either the boat or the shop without hesitation. However, I'd dive with the DM if you paid me and gave me enough warning to ensure that there was someone besides the DM checking I was back on the boat.

Note: On my boat, we do both a roll call and a head count even when its just me and a buddy.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Yes but Phil, he reported that he hadn't gotten to the rig yet, so he couldn't have stayed within the structure since his problem occurred before he got to it. He followed the bubbles down to 108 feet to try to find them, and never did - and never saw the rig.

Also, again, he reported that the whole dive, including his time descending with his buddies, his efforts to clear, his search for his buddies, and his safety stop, were what comprised the 15 minutes - not that he drifted underwater for that entire time.

I've never heard of a dive operation that will allow anyone to descend away from the rigs. Every boat I've been stresses that they want you to swim to a specific leg, then descend and ascend the same leg. Also, if he couldn't find his buddies, he should have surfaced immediately rather than swim around and make a safety stop in open water. Those are the very reasons he surfaced down current from the boat. None of these problems would have occured if he had followed even one procedure correctly. I agree the DM should share most of the guilt, but Dan was responsible for his own errors and has yet to admit to any.

 

[mike_s]

. I agree the DM should share most of the guilt, .

True.... but in the end, the Captain is the one ultimately responsible when something happens on his boat.

He (and/or the boat owner) should have implemented a better diver count system/checklist to prevent this.


I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm not sure, but I THINK the captain was found at fault here and his license was suspended for some period. (I'll need to go search that to verify).


I've been on boats where they do roll calls in "triple" or "quadruple' redundancy.
* tag out board (for in/out of water).
* roll call by name
* head count by at least 2 separate crew


Simply put, this could have been prevented.


EDIT:

I found that the captain voluntarily surrendered his license for suspension and then worked towards implementing changes with other captains and certification agencies to come up with better standards.