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

[Mike Boswell]

If you ask me, Nothing.

It was his own bad actions that sent him drifting in the first place. The roll call was secondary and only prolonged his drift.
Don't get me wrong, I really do feel for the guy. I would not wish that on anyone, well maybe a few .
But it was him that set off the chain of events in the first place. He should have made sure he had a buddy, not play tag along with someone and a student. He should have surfaced immediately when he lost sight of them and the rig.

I'm off to get my flame retardant suit on now...:fire:

Yeah, but the dive boat is a business, and they get paid to take people out diving and bring them back. They are supposed to be competent and professional, and on that day, twice, they weren't. Their lack of performance was outrageous, and the jury was outraged.

 

[Leejnd]

I will very strongly disagree here. The DM had a job to do and did not do it. As soon as he realized Dan was not on board at the second location (this is excusing the DM for marking him in at the first location under the assumption someone answered for Dan during roll call), he should have stepped up and told the captain. This would have done two things- eliminated the appearance of a cover up, and also put into the search effort that he may have been at the first site. By marking him in the water at the second site, that was where the search effort concentrated.

I don't think that Doug was saying that the DM didn't completely screw up. I think he was just saying that he doesn't think he did it intentionally. Nor do I - which is what I was agreeing with.

He did NOT do his job - that's indisputable. I wouldn't get on a boat with him as DM if you paid me. My personal opinion is that he was, by far, the most negligent of everyone involved. There's simply no excuse for what he did.

I just don't think he meant to do it intentionally.

 

[Doug Charney]

Hmmm... well, I'm not a lawyer, but...

One of the things that goes into figuring a reward in cases of negligence is the concept of duty. I know something about medical malpractice, so I'll use that as an example.

For a medical malpractice to exist, there needs to be three things: (1) a duty to care for the patient (i.e. a doctor-patient relationship), (2) neglect of that duty, and (3) damages.

So if I write an article that says that drug X is good for condition Y, and someone with Y takes that drug and has a bad outcome, I'm off the hook as far as medical malpractice, since I have no duty to care for that patient (3, but no 1). Similarly, if a patient comes to my office and I give him a drug but forget to check his chart to figure out that he is allergic to that drug, and he takes it and does not have an allergic reaction, I'm also off the hook (1 and 2 but no 3).

SO, the reason why the DM's negligence might be considered relevant and Dan's is less so, is that the DM was acting as a professional to provide a service, and the jury concluded that accurately checking people in and out of the water was part of that service - that the DM had a duty that was neglected.

To extend the analogy with medicine - I see a patient and do a biopsy. The results come back as cancer, but the pathology report gets lost on my desk and I never call them. But the patient also misses a follow up visit, and they never call me to get the results.

If they had come in for a visit or called, they would have gotten the results, so their actions were definitely contributory to missing the diagnosis. However, that means nothing, since the duty to care is mine, and malpractice would exist.

Maybe the lawyers here can discuss the differences between the medical and dive industries in this regard - I'm sure that there are some. But I think that the similarity does exist in the question of the duty of the professionals involved in this case. To say that the award should be nothing because if Dan hadn't drifted off, he wouldn't have had the problem, does not acknowledge the role of professional negligence, IMHO.

Just to be clear, I wasn't stating that he deserved nothing based on anything other my own personal feelings. I'm not a lawyer.

I just feel he was drifting due to his own acts. He was only drifting longer due to the roll call. Also, I don't feel he suffered any injuries. There is no way to know if the cancer was from this incident. 1.68 Million is insane. The 4 Million that he asked for shows what he was really after.

 

[Leejnd]

That is not quite true.

Divers are told in the briefing to surface in the same area where they are dropped (usually the NW corner or the or the east side [NW-to-SW corner]). They will then be directed (by someone on the boat) to swim out on the surface to the boat, or to group together to be picked up, or whatever.

Yes, there's an implication there that the boat will be in a position to get you, but to make it sound like you're told speficially "The boat will come get you" overstates it, IMHO. And the reality is that sometimes, you just swim over to the boat.

- Ken

I was oversimplifying. You are correct. I was simply postulating why Dan might have thought that he didn't need to swim to the boat. In my briefings at the rigs, "the boat will come get us" has always been an implicit, if not explicit, part of the briefing - but again, that's an oversimplification. The full message is closer to what you described.

 

[merxlin]

I don't think that Doug was saying that the DM didn't completely screw up. I think he was just saying that he doesn't think he did it intentionally. Nor do I - which is what I was agreeing with.

He did NOT do his job - that's indisputable. I wouldn't get on a boat with him as DM if you paid me. My personal opinion is that he was, by far, the most negligent of everyone involved. There's simply no excuse for what he did.

I just don't think he meant to do it intentionally.

I agree that he (the DM) did not leave Dan intentionally. But I can't "feel for him" for doing a piss poor job.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I don't necessarily fault Dan for these discrepancies. I don't consider it "lying".

I don't consider it lying either. When you're under oath, it's known as "perjury."



- Ken

 

[ChrisM]

OK, I know Ken, and he likes to talk. I wonder if the three days was because the atty had a lot of questions to ask (3 days???? sounds like a lot for some very discrete issues...), or whether Ken's answers were just verrrry long The man can tell stories

 

[MaxBottomtime]

This also brings into focus the earlier question about whether or not it was "proven" that he tried to swim to the boat. Obviously there are discrepancies in his testimony about this - but after speaking with my lawyer brother (and a couple other attorneys), I'm told that this is not uncommon, especially when one is trying to recall a traumatic experience.

This is what he recalled in his multiple press interviews just two days after the dive;
"He decided to end the dive after 15 minutes, but he was 400 feet down current from an oil platform where the boat was anchored. He blew his whistle to attract attention.
"I figured when the dive was over they would realize I was missing and come looking for me," Carlock said.

 

[Leejnd]

This is what he recalled in his multiple press interviews just two days after the dive;
"He decided to end the dive after 15 minutes, but he was 400 feet down current from an oil platform where the boat was anchored. He blew his whistle to attract attention.
"I figured when the dive was over they would realize I was missing and come looking for me," Carlock said.

I thought it was established that the boat didn't anchor? Or is that just bad reporting (not that that would surprise me one bit)?

 

[merxlin]

I thought it was established that the boat didn't anchor? Or is that just bad reporting (not that that would surprise me one bit)?

Given all else in this case, it could be a direct quote or bad reporting.