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

[Scott L]

How did he develop skin cancer if the weather was foggy for the most part?

 

[doctormike]

It is important to review the literature with a critical eye. That first quote comes from a case-control study (i won't get into that) that lists a history of severe sunburn among other factors as a risk factor for melanoma.

You are correct that the standard of proof would be a double blinded randomized clinical trial. As you would not be able to do that with human subjects for melanoma, we are limited to case reports, and case-control series. This is true for many fields of research, it doesn't mean that the data that you acquire is worthless, but may not be enough to prove causation. Again, you can rarely prove causation, but I still don't see how you can prove a lack of causation when there is some evidence to the contrary.

As you are well aware, cancer is a multi-factorial disease process.

True, yet that sweeping generalization doesn't necessarily mean that a single inciting event can never be blamed for a particular cancer. For example, the 10 fold increase in thyroid cancer in children in the Ukraine after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Of course, floating in the fog for a few hours is not the same as being at ground zero for a reactor meltdown, I'm just using it as an example.

Remember, you and I agree that Dan's cancer is not likely related to this event. I am just giving background information to let other readers understand that it is not impossible that a single really bad sunburn could cause a melanoma. Now you could parse this to say "it raises the risk, but it doesn't cause it", but I think that is semantics.

However, to claim one sunburn as the specific cause of your cancer is laughable

Again, a statement not supported by the literature. However, DAN'S claim that his cancer was caused by THIS exposure may well be laughable (from a medical point of view).

I don't think that contradicts what you copy-pasted regarding skin cancer.

What, I have to type everything out myself now?

Anyways, I think this is enough about sunburns - litigious or otherwise.

I agree, Lemon...! seriously, this is a good conversation, and you clearly have an understanding of the issues here. It's always helpful for posters to explain their logic and reasoning like this, rather than just flinging around bumper sticker phrases...

Best,

Mike

 

[idocsteve]

How did he develop skin cancer if the weather was foggy for the most part?

UV rays cut through clouds as if they weren't even there.

 

[iztok]

Remember, you and I agree that Dan's cancer is not likely related to this event.

This stems from people not understanding basic science principles and basic statistics.

Just because something is possible doesn't make it probable.

It is impossible to prove universal negative (i.e. "Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist") but that impossibility doesn't make something any more probable.

It is impossible to prove cancer wasn't caused by aforementioned drifting but that doesn't make it probable. (It might have increased the probability a bit but that is it.)

 

[doctormike]

This stems from people not understanding basic science principles and basic statistics.

Just because something is possible doesn't make it probable.

It is impossible to prove universal negative (i.e. "Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist") but that impossibility doesn't make something any more probable.

It is impossible to prove cancer wasn't caused by aforementioned drifting but that doesn't make it probable. (It might have increased the probability a bit but that is it.)

Right. But the discussion we were having was about an assessment - based on no real information about the degree of exposure or the pathology of the malignancy involved - that it was highly unlikely (or, as it was originally put, "crap") that the cancer was the result of the exposure. I'm pretty sure no one here was arguing that Dan's cancer was probably caused by his exposure, not sure where you got that word.

I don't know if it is helpful to go over this again, but the literature supports the likelihood of a significant increase in the risk of melanoma following a single severe sunburn. Please realize that this is different from the cumulative UV effect of sun exposure over many years, which increases the chance of other types of skin cancer (basal and squamous cell). So to dismiss the chance of this being the case here as statistically negligible (i.e. invisible pink unicorns) is simply not correct, based on what is known about this condition.

And, once again...

 

[Leejnd]

That's pretty much what the jury said too.

My biggest issue is the huge dollar award because the guy had to sit in the ocean for 5 hours.

Heck I'd sit out there all day for a cool $500k.

Yeah. Sure you would. People keep saying that. Would you do it if you had to spend the entire time assuming you were not going to be rescued, and were going to die a horrible death floating alone in the ocean? Yeah. Uh huh. Didn't think so.

And even if you say you would, sorry - not buying it.

 

[idocsteve]

Yeah. Sure you would. People keep saying that. Would you do it if you had to spend the entire time assuming you were not going to be rescued, and were going to die a horrible death floating alone in the ocean? Yeah. Uh huh. Didn't think so.

And even if you say you would, sorry - not buying it.

Lee,

Why do you bother asking questions if you've already decided what the person's answer is going to be, because you naturally assume everyone thinks the way YOU do?

I already know what you're going to say and I'm not buying it.

 

[ItsBruce]

Having thought about this a bit more:

1. I think the jury got the percentages of fault about right. Dan may have set the stage for having been left behind, e.g. no buddy, submerging before reaching the rig, going deep looking for his "buddy" and doing a safety stop. However, the fact remains that someone marked him as being aboard when he wasn't, and as a result, the boat left without him. That error far outweighs anything Dan did wrong.

2. The damages were excessive. If the defendants were at fault for the entire time Dan was adrift, the damage figure seems very high relative to other incidents in which a plaintiff feared a horrible death. However, and noting that I don't know what Dan's expert may have said, given Ken's analysis and my understanding that the jury was only considering negligence in terms of Dan being left behind (i.e. not that there was no lookout), the first several hours of Dan's ordeal was not due to Dan having been marked as being aboard. (as Ken said, Dan "owned" those), so the damages for the time Dan was adrift due to the DM's negligence are even more extreme. Then, to compound this, consider how much emotional distress Dan suffered as the result of drifting during the time he was adrift without any fault on the DM compared to the time he was adrift due to the DM's negligence. I would expect that by the time Dan was adrift due to the DM's negligence, he was already resigned to dying at sea and anything beyond that was, by comparison, minor.

I'll say it again: I do not know what Dan's expert may have said. So, maybe Ken's analysis was challenged or even refuted. I do not know.

I could well imagine that if the trial court does not reduce the damage award, the Court of Appeal will intercede.

 

[Leejnd]

Lee,

Why do you bother asking questions if you've already decided what the person's answer is going to be, because you naturally assume everyone thinks the way YOU do?

Apparently you've never heard the term "rhetorical". Google it.

 

[idocsteve]

Apparently you've never heard the term "rhetorical". Google it.

I see you've asked me yet another question and answered it for me.

And you got that one wrong too. I am fully aware of the term "rhetorical" and it does NOT mean that everyone will answer a question the same way you do.

Do you do this alot?

Notice how I'm giving you the opportunity to answer even though I already know what you're going to say if you're honest with yourself.