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

[doctormike]

Search for 1-minute, not descend to 108-ft to search for a buddy.

Right, but you had previously implied that it was an error not to have immediately surfaced.

He lost his buddy but didn't go up immediately

He saw the bubbles that he believed to be from his buddies. If this had been relatively clear water and he was able to see them at 108 feet from his position at, say, 50 feet, would you still feel that he shouldn't have descended to catch up with them (assuming that he was prepared to descend to that depth otherwise)? That would probably even be within the one minute search parameters...

I understand the point that you are making, and I don't mean to be difficult. You may be right - he may have panicked and made a blind descent in blue water, or he may have really had a good read on his buddies' last position. We don't know, we weren't there. But I don't think that this attempt to rejoin his buddies by itself demonstrates poor judgement.

 

[mikemill]

Given Ken's analysis I would say the important part wasn't the check in but, as Thal pointed out, not spotting him when he surfaced. Even if the boat could not move to collect him immediately they would have known where he was and been able to get him faster. The check-in failure to me shows how negligent they were, i.e. if they screw up a simple check in then they probably weren't paying attention to the surroundings to look for divers as they surfaced.

IMO Ken's analysis wasn't to absolve they boat and crew but instead was to mitigate the damages. All it was doing was saying "if the check-ins had been done what would have been the likely procedure and how long would it have taken to find him". It is all about figuring out what damage was actually done by the boat/crew's actions.

 

[merxlin]

Hi, Merxlin...!

I have no idea, neither I nor anyone else here is in any position to make that call. I don't know what skin lesion he had, what his past exposure was, what the day was like, etc... In no way was I claiming anything about the specifics of the case (apart from pointing back to a previous point about physical vs. emotional damages).

I was just doing my job as a medical moderator and providing some accurate background information. As you know, another poster had flatly stated that the possibility of someone developing cancer from a single bad sunburn was "crap". This is not correct.

I do appreciate your input on what can cause a melanoma. I understand that there are two many variables to make an armchair diagnosis. So although we might think it unreasonable from this event, it is not impossible. Good to know.

 

[jrwalsh20]

i had not heard about this before. I am sure that this question has been asked and answered many times before but here goes...

how do you surface 400 feet from the boat when you have trouble equalizing? Equalization happens very quickly at the beginning of the dive, unless the current was ripping how do you get that far away from the boat that quickly? Cramp or not i am swimming my ass off to get back to the boat, not saying he did anything intentionally, but 1.68 million, come on, get real. Jury's are a joke, to me they are worse than the lawyers.

 

[fnfalman]

I understand the point that you are making, and I don't mean to be difficult. You may be right - he may have panicked and made a blind descent in blue water, or he may have really had a good read on his buddies' last position. We don't know, we weren't there. But I don't think that this attempt to rejoin his buddies by itself demonstrates poor judgement.

I think that his thinking that somehow with a handful of dives under his belt and an AOW card would make him ready for oil rig diving is poor judgment in the very beginning.

For an engineer he sure didn't seem to be all that great with details and research.

Obviously the court thought that he bore some responsibilities and docked the money down from $2-million. I would have docked it down to 50%. He's responsible for that much.

 

[Can't swim]

Well, so much for having a dive buddy!!
Guess I'll continue to solo and if I get lost or left behind I can suit me and then split the money with myself.
Shame he didn't have a cup of hot coffee on him, that way he could have spilled it and made more money.
Some things did go wrong, like counting him on the boat and he wasn't there but, 1.68 million worth of wrong???

 

[Rhone Man]

I do believe Dan was an avid fisherman, and a diver. He was in a dense fog for most of the time in the water. Is it reasonable to think that his melanoma was from this one exposure, where there was no report of blistering sunburn?

Causation is a funny thing in law. Many jurisdictions all you have to prove is a material contribution to risk where it is not possible to pinpoint an exact cause (ie. someone who been exposed to asbestos and has smoked can still claim for lung cancer, even though it is not possible to which of those two things caused the first cell to go rogue).

However, an extra few hours in the sun (fog?) does seem to be pushing it a little.

 

[doctormike]

I do appreciate your input on what can cause a melanoma. I understand that there are two many variables to make an armchair diagnosis. So although we might think it unreasonable from this event, it is not impossible. Good to know.

Yup, and I tend to agree with you about the likelihood of proximate cause in this case.

This sort of thing comes up all the time in medicine - we are constantly asked to testify that X damage was caused by Y action. The problem is that the law wants to assign blame to assess damages, so the legal system expects a doctor to be able to say that Y caused 100% of X, or 50% of X or whatever.

In medicine, there are rarely such clearcut causes and effects. Why does one person smoke two packs a day for decades and live to be 98, and another one gets lung cancer in their fifties? Why does one person work on a fishing boat in the tropics their whole lives and never get a mole, while an office worker in Minnesota gets a fatal melanoma? There is so much we don't know about genetics, predisposition to disease, etc...

SO, the medical and legal systems are frequently at cross purposes. Imagine that!

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Given Ken's analysis I would say the important part wasn't the check in but, as Thal pointed out, not spotting him when he surfaced. Even if the boat could not move to collect him immediately they would have known where he was and been able to get him faster. The check-in failure to me shows how negligent they were, i.e. if they screw up a simple check in then they probably weren't paying attention to the surroundings to look for divers as they surfaced.

IMO Ken's analysis wasn't to absolve they boat and crew but instead was to mitigate the damages. All it was doing was saying "if the check-ins had been done what would have been the likely procedure and how long would it have taken to find him". It is all about figuring out what damage was actually done by the boat/crew's actions.

Ken's reply to Thal;

Thalassamania wrote: "I would differ, and respectfully submit that the first breach of duty occurred when the diver surfaced, blew a whistle and waived and was not seen by anyone one the boat."

Not an unreasonable assumption but there's a great disparagy about where Dan surfaced. He changed his story at trial from what he said at his depo.

At trial, he says he was 400 feet from the rig, the boat was between him and the rig 9so maybe he wass 200 feet fr9om the boat), and - on a diagram he drew in court as an exhibit - he was due north of the rig, more or less between the NW and NE legs. However . . .

The current was moving west-to-east. Dan's claimed position is 90 degrees perpendicular to current direction. I fail to see how he could have drifted 90 degrees perpedicular to the current.

Based on his previous testimony and his statements of being near a large mooring buoy (which is 1039 feet away from the NE corner of the rig), and based on the speed of ther drift and the time he was in the blue with no reference, I think Dan surfaced roughly 1100 feet to the east of the rig.

This is an area where (1) no diver has ever surfaced before, and (2) is nowhere near the area surrounding the rigs where you'd reasonably expect anyone to be watching. It's essentially waaaaay behind the boat and nowhere near the dive area.

It somewhat like me saying we should meet in Maui but then I go to Kaui and wonder why you didn't find me. They're both Hawaii, right???

Also, a staged picture (that I took) was entered into evidence of a diver in the water with an inflated safety sausage. The diver is 1100 feet from the rig and the boat is on the NW corner. The only thing visible in the picture is a black speck, and you have to know to look for it. Point is, this idea of blowing up a safety sausage means you'll be seen isn't necessarily true.

So your general premise of duty is fine had Dan surfaced that close to the boat but I just don't think that what he testified to in court is what actually happened.

- Ken

 

[MaxBottomtime]

Causation is a funny thing in law. Many jurisdictions all you have to prove is a material contribution to risk where it is not possible to pinpoint an exact cause (ie. someone who been exposed to asbestos and has smoked can still claim for lung cancer, even though it is not possible to which of those two things caused the first cell to go rogue).

However, an extra few hours in the sun (fog?) does seem to be pushing it a little.

Not to mention the fact that he was in a full 6mm wetsuit with gloves and hood.