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

[Leejnd]

I doubt that ink was as dry as the other check marks...

I actually disagree with you on that...if only because the fact that he was marked in on BOTH roll calls is even MORE damning to the boat's check-in practices. If they'd missed him only on the first roll call, and then discovered he was missing when doing the second, they would have been able to tell the Coast Guard where to search. Instead, the fact that he was marked in on BOTH roll calls is pretty freakin bad.

 

[Scott L]

It's hard enough to be wrong once. Twice? Checked-off post fact IMHO...

 

[ItsBruce]

The forums have proved that one cannot possibly get a fair result from a jury with so-called special knowledge. Look at how many of us with special knowledge of diving disagree on who is responsible for what. Just recall the discussion on the woman who went over the edge of a wall and went down, down, down, all with a DM nearby, a year or two ago?

The only way there can be any fairness is to start with people with no knowledge and then let the experts educate them. Of course, each side will have an expert with a contradictory opinion, so it is for the proponent of the expert to show why his or her expert should be believed and for the opponent to show why the particular expert is not worthy of belief, i.e. biased, incompetent, etc.

 

[Leejnd]

It's hard enough to be wrong once. Twice? Checked-off post fact IMHO...

Okay - I see your point. It's entirely possible that they checked him off after they realized he was missing. But the reason I find that to be unlikely is that, it looks SO much worse for them to have checked him off TWICE, when he clearly wasn't there either time. So why would they do that, when it makes them look so much worse? Plus, they told the Coast Guard to search at the second site. If what you're saying is true, then they KNEW he was left at the first site - why would they knowingly check him off for the second roll-call, then knowingly tell the Coast Guard to search for him at a place where they knew he wouldn't be found?

If that's true, then whoa - that would akin to attempted murder.

I have never thought that was the case. I have always thought that it was just bad roll-call practices - somebody answered for him, or they just got sloppy and marked him off in error, assuming he was on board without verifying.

If they did it on purpose, that would raise this crime to a whole other level that I don't even want to contemplate...

 

[ItsBruce]

I understand that the boat is responsible for what goes on aboard. I understand that the employer of the particular DM who marked the diver as being aboard is responsible for the DM.

Subject to that, I have no reason to think the boat is not one I'd dive from. Nor would I have a problem with the dive shop. But, I would not be apt to dive on a dive where the particular DM was aboard. Now that the jury has rendered a decision, who was the particular DM?

 

[Leejnd]

From an earlier article in the Orange County Register:

"Arntz said that keeping track of all the divers was the job of on-board divemaster Zacarias Araneta and Andy Huber, the divemaster for those in the water.

Araneta testified last week that when he took roll call, someone answered for Carlock."

 

[ChrisM]

Really? What mistakes were made by the diver? I'd like to know, because I've been following this case for years, and I cannot see one thing the diver did wrong. So, let's hear it: what'd he do wrong?

I usually stay out of this discussion because I (used to) dive the Sundiver quite a lot and consider Capt. Ray to be one of the best capts around, and intend to dive off that boat again once I am diving again. I actually dove that boat the week after Dan went drifting

First, there is NO QUESTION that there was a HUGE screw up. Marking him on and off the boat? That's bad no matter how you shake it out. I *heard* but have never confirmed that someone answered for him by mistake after the first dive, then answered again for themselves, and never told the DM. True? No idea. That doesn't explain the second dive though....

The real legal issue is WHO is responsible for that? Clearly the DM, clearly his or her employer. The charter? That was a big issue, and it was I guess a lesson learned that the capt's responsibility isn't just to find a good dive site, but to manage divers as well. Actually, the story doesn't say against whom the judgment was awarded, as there were several defendants, including the shop and the boat. Either the damages were apportioned or it was "joint and several" liability, in other words, any one of several defendants is responsible for all of Dan's damages.

I never dove the Sundiver as a shop charter, I only dove it as a Sundiver charter, and as I recall they always did a visual roll call.

As for what Dan did, well apparently the jury agreed that Dan was partly at fault, as the original award was $2 Million, reduced to take Dan's own negligence into account. Looks like the jury determined that Dan was 15-20% at fault.

As for what he did, at the rigs I can think of a couple things. One, don't lose your buddy, and if you do, surface immediately. If you don't find the rigs in a couple minutes (they drop you off away from the rig and you swim to it), surface immediately. He did neither of these. If he had, he might have avoided it all. Carry a large marker and whistle (not sure if he did, or whistled, or inflated a buoy), swim to the boat if you are on the surface. There's a lot that he could have done wrong. And anyone that determines liability or lack of liability based on a newspaper article does not have all of the facts (in fact, unless you were sitting in trial and heard the testimony we don't know the full story)

Just my .02

 

[Leejnd]

As for what Dan did, well apparently the jury agreed that Dan was partly at fault, as the original award was $2 Million, reduced to take Dan's own negligence into account. Looks like the jury determined that Dan was 15-20% at fault.

As for what he did, at the rigs I can think of a couple things. One, don't lose your buddy, and if you do, surface immediately. If you don't find the rigs in a couple minutes (they drop you off away from the rig and you swim to it), surface immediately. He did neither of these. If he had, he might have avoided it all. Carry a large marker and whistle (not sure if he did, or whistled, or inflated a buoy), swim to the boat if you are on the surface. There's a lot that he could have done wrong. And anyone that determines liability or lack of liability based on a newspaper article does not have all of the facts (in fact, unless you were sitting in trial and heard the testimony we don't know the full story)

Well you are correct that the jury determined he was partly responsible. I personally disagree with that. He may have not executed a perfect dive, but nothing that he did had anything to do with the dive boat leaving him behind.

I've been following this case since I first read about it four years ago, and much misinformation and many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the facts have been posted in all the previous threads on this topic. One big one: that he continued his dive for 15 minutes after he lost his buddies. My understanding of all that I've read about it is that the dive itself was only a total of 15 minutes - including the time that he spent with his buddies. I don't recall how long into the dive he began to have equalization problems, but I do recall that he lost his buddies during his efforts to equalize, spent a short amount of time trying to find them (following their bubbles), then gave up and surfaced, after doing a 3-minute safety stop. That sounds textbook to me.

The only thing he did wrong, IIRC, was not stay within the legs of the rig, so that he could hold onto them and prevent being swept away by current. But given the fact that he had equalization problems, AND he had leg cramps, I don't consider that to be an error worthy of the reduction in award. And besides, that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the boat leaving him behind.

Also, he had a whistle, and blew it. He had a safety sausage - he inflated it and waved it (it's that safety sausage the boyscout saw).

The boat left him behind due to lax roll call practices.

As for who is to blame, I haven't entered into that discussion because I don't know enough about the underlying issues, so I'll leave that to others to debate. Not that it matters now - the case is over, damages and blame have been assessed.

 

[ChrisM]

Well, with all due respect, I'd say it's a mistake to ascribe any more weight to anything you've read on the internet than to testimony offered at trial. Unless you've read the transcript as to what actually was testified to?

BTW, AFAIK, he never got to the rig, so not staying there wasn't possible. And performing a SS in that situation would also be a mistake, IMHO. Anyone that dives blue water knows if you haven't reached your target, you've lost your buddies, surface immediately, do not pass go, do not stop at 15'

Anyway, I wasn't at trial, you weren't at trial, I am not debating the facts (or interested in doing so). You are free to disagree with the jury based on internet postings

 

[cruiser]

latimes.com

Engineer wins $1.68 million in scuba diving case

Daniel Carlock, who was abandoned in the ocean on a 2004 dive trip, is awarded damages in his five-year legal battle against Venice-based Ocean Adventures Dive Co. and Long Beach-based Sundiver Charters.

By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times

October 24, 2010

Daniel Carlock, a Santa Monica aerospace engineer, prayed to God not to let him die after he was abandoned floating in the ocean 12 miles off Long Beach by leaders of a scuba diving excursion. After nearly five hours, surrounded by thick fog, "I had this feeling my spirit was getting ready to vacate my body," he recalled.

On Friday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury awarded Carlock $1.68 million in damages in his five-year legal battle against Venice-based Ocean Adventures Dive Co. and Long Beach-based Sundiver Charters.

The jury heard testimony that Carlock, who was 45 at the time of the 2004 incident, had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and developed skin cancer from exposure.

"It has been an ordeal," he said as he celebrated at a Newport Beach restaurant with his wife, Anne. "But I wanted to seek changes in the scuba industry. Others will benefit."

The Sundiver, carrying 20 scuba divers, was staging a dive near the oil rig Eureka when Carlock surfaced 400 feet from the vessel after having trouble equalizing the pressure in his ears.

He said he tried to swim back to the boat but got cramps in his legs. He blew on his safety whistle and waved a yellow inflatable diving sausage, but the others on the vessel did not see him and no one noticed he was gone.

Despite his absence, a dive master for Ocean Adventures marked him on the dive roster as present on the boat.

Then, to escape strong currents, the boat moved to a second dive site seven miles away. Once the vessel was there, Carlock was again marked on the roster as having taken a second dive — although by then he was bobbing alone in the ocean miles away.

It wasn't until more than three hours after Carlock had been left behind at the first site that the crew realized he was missing and the Sundiver's captain radioed the Coast Guard. Rescue workers rushed to the second dive site.

Meanwhile, south of the first dive site, Carlock was drifting in strong currents toward Newport Beach with "the feeling that I was going to die."

The Coast Guard never did find Carlock. He was rescued seven miles off Newport Beach by the Argus, a tall ship carrying a group of Boy Scouts. The ship had changed course to avoid colliding with a freighter; otherwise it would not have been in sight of Carlock.

He was spotted by a 15-year-old Scout who happened to be looking through binoculars. At first, the Scout thought he was seeing a piece of trash in the distance.

After a 23-day trial and 21/2 days of deliberations, the jury assessed total damages in the negligence suit at $2 million. But it reduced Carlock's award on the grounds that he was partly responsible because he had been told to surface closer to the boat.

"Dan has changed the industry's safety standards so that other divers won't be left out in the ocean and endure this kind of terror," said Carlock's attorney, Scott Koepke.

He said industry standards had previously been "amorphous" on how to count divers. "Now they have to have visual verification and redundancy. And the dive boat captains, not just the dive masters, are responsible for the count."

A man answering the telephone at Ocean Adventures said owner Stephen Ladd was unreachable because he was diving off Thailand. Sundiver Charters did not respond to messages.

Lawyers for the companies had contended that by participating in the dive, Carlock had assumed certain risks, thereby waiving his right to hold operators responsible. But a judge refused to dismiss the case, saying that being abandoned at sea is not a risk inherent in the sport.

Stephen Hewitt, an attorney for Ocean Adventures, acknowledged that "everyone involved had some obligation to look for and account for Mr. Carlock."

However, he added, he had hoped the jury would find Carlock 50% responsible for the incident. "We have a buddy rule. If you can't find your buddy, you are supposed to surface, but he continued to dive for 15 minutes by himself," Hewitt said. In the trial, he said, "there was a dispute" as to the identity of Carlock's buddy, with one of the dive masters denying it was he.

"We question the amount of effort Mr. Carlock made to swim back to the boat," he said. "He chose to let the current take him away."

Hewitt disagreed with the jury's decision to include future pain and suffering as part of the $1.68-million award. "He is married. He has a life and seems to be OK." .
Carlock's ordeal attracted international attention at the time. He appeared on NBC's "Today" show and on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," among others.

--Posted for the benefit of those who stumble on this thread long after the article has been removed from the LA Times website--