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

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The speed and direction he was drifting would have allowed him to make a beach exit in Newport or Laguna Beach sometime around sunset.
I've dived the same rigs and the first time I was there I had a strange post dive experience. I was diving from the Great Escape, an 80' boat. When I surfaced from the last dive, the boat was nowhere in sight. Visibility was about a mile that day. I saw the stern of a large boat disappearing into the fog heading back to L.A. Harbor
I didn't panic. Knowing there were guys working up on the rigs, I began climbing the ladder to ask them to call the boat. Before I got to the top rung I heard the DM call my name. One of the divers didn't pay attention and came up down current. They went to get her and then came back for me. No harm, no foul. Is it too late to sue? I could use $4 mil.
 
The question is not whether Dan was likely to die or not. Rather, it is whether he thought he was going to die. And, as far as Dan's expectation of being found, recall that there was only 1/4 mile of visibility due to fog. I'm a sceptic, yet I do not doubt Dan figured he was history. However, per Ken's computations, which seem pretty solid to me, the first few hours of drifting were not the result of the botched roll call, but rather Dan's having surfaced where he did and then failing to immediately inflate a safety sausage. That being the case, how much added emotional distress did the subsequent time adrift cause him? That's where I have trouble and I expect the trial judge or court of appeal will, too.
 
The question is not whether Dan was likely to die or not. Rather, it is whether he thought he was going to die.
That was my point a while back. I have no idea what he really thought. Even what he said after the event may not have been an accurate portrayal of that. I don't know if his tune changed when $$$ flashed before his eyes but it is possible. Only he knows for sure. I just think he's a pretty bad pessimist if he was thinking "OMG, I'm gonna die" the whole time. Also I think it's a little funny that if he really did think that, then he somehow deserves more money - even though I understand that's how the system works. He had to show some loss and saying that "I got a bad sunburn on my cheeks and a leg cramp while I twiddled my thumbs waiting for them to come pick me up" is not going to win over many juries.

Finally, I do want to stress that I think the DM screwed up big time and Dan deserved to be compensated for that despite his own errors - just at an amount far below $1.68 million. I'm not anti-Dan; just anti-silly lawsuits and awards. ....and pro-learning from other peoples' mistakes.
 
Crazy amounts. Yes a mistake was made but diving isn't a risk free activity. Time to accept some of that risk or not get in the water at all.

Someone is at fault but the sum involved is ludicrous.
 
So you don't think that Dan paid already, by spending four of the most horrific hours I could even imagine?

I think that Dan suffered. And I think that the crewmen on the boat have also suffered. I think that they both made mistakes and I hope they have both learned from those mistakes.

I don't think the diving public - that's you and I - made any mistakes, and I don't think that you and I and other divers should have to pay the $1.68 million-dollar award.
 
My question is... how long should the players suffer? Sure people messed up but I sure wouldn't want to be going through the stress this suit has caused for so many people either. I suspect the DM has suffered greatly from self recriminations and the accusations of others. I wonder if the stress this caused him and his family over the YEARS is any less significant than the Hours of stress Dan suffered.

Eventually IMHO people need to accept that we all make mistakes ... learn from them and forgive people for being human. I am pretty confident that the Dive OP, the Captain, the DM, whoever answered for Dan and Dan himself didn't board that boat thinking their actions would contribute to a chain of evens that would cause a ripple effect through the rest of their lives and the dive community!
 
...........I suspect the DM has suffered greatly from self recriminations and the accusations of others. I wonder if the stress this caused him and his family over the YEARS is any less significant than the Hours of stress Dan suffered.......

The difference is that Dan's actions may have contributed to the event, but the DM's actions were while he had a job to make sure that when Dan screwed up, he was accounted for. Epic fail on that point. I'll give him some slack for someone answering for Dan at roll call, but no slack for marking him in in the second dive. He should have been noticed then. For that, he should have some self suffering.
 
I agree with Sting, diving is not a risk free activity. Being injured by the sea life is an inherent risk. The bends are an inherent risk. I just don't see that being left behind is an inherent risk.

As for Dan's emotional distress, I am quite sure that defense counsel did his best to try to persuade the jury that Dan's fear of dying arose only after he was rescued and decided to sue or in the alternative that he was so distraught during the time he was adrift "on his own time" that the incremental distress after that was negligible. Apparently the jury believed otherwise. But, whatever the case, I think the figure is very high.
 
Hi folks,

So I've spent my Sunday morning reading through 308 posts and I'm still unclear on something (apologies in advance if I missed it): how many people were actually on the boat?

I ask this because Ken's (excellent as usual) summary said it was a boat that could carry about 25 divers. But one of the news reports cited said there were 7 divers on board.

Now, getting a head count mixed up with 25 people - I can understand that. But SEVEN people on board? How could you not notice there's one missing?

Just my 2 cents....

Trish

p.s. Thanks to the docs and others for the diversion into the skin cancer/melanoma thing - very enlightening and interesting, especially to someone like me, who has it in her family and is very careful about sun exposure and annual mole checks. Hopefully, somebody out there with a weird looking mole will take heed...
 

Back
Top Bottom