"Drifting Dan" Carlock wins $1.68 million after being left at sea
- Thread starter ChrisM
- Start date
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
Leejnd
Contributor
I don't consider it lying either. When you're under oath, it's known as "perjury."
- Ken
Point taken. However, I just want to mention that it's not always so easy to be 100% accurate when you're on the stand...and confusion, or mis-speaking or mis-stating things, does not necessarily equate to perjury.
I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who has been through a very difficult experience on the stand myself. Many years ago, I was the victim of an adoption fraud. In short, a woman claimed to be pregnant, chose my husband and me via a private-adoption service to be the baby's parents, accepted thousands of dollars in "living expenses" from us (and, it turned out, several other couples simultaneously), then disappeared - and it turned out she was never even pregnant. She got arrested, and I testified against her.
The defense attorney started asking me questions about my "intentions" for the money that we gave her. I don't want to get into too much boring detail about the case, but the gist of it is that money given to a potential birth mother can legally only be for "birth-related expenses", and is legally considered a "gift". The defense attorney started asking me all kinds of questions about WHY I gave her the money, trying to make it appear that I was attempting to "buy" the baby (even though no baby actually existed). I wasn't - I'd only tried to follow the complicated and conflicting rules for private adoptions that existed in this state back then. And I did my best to explain that, but it seemed that no matter what I said, she was able to trip me up and make it appear that *I* was doing something wrong! *I* was a heartless baby-buyer! Even though I was the one defrauded of money by a soulless criminal who took thousands of dollars from us and other infertile couples who wanted nothing more than to start families, and had our hearts broken and dreams stolen by someone who wanted only to prey on our desire for a child, in order to pad her own wallet.
(oops - and I was going to be brief!)
Anyway, my point is - for those of us not used to being "on the stand", it can be a rather intimidating and confusing place, and I have compassion for anyone who finds themselves confused up there!
Of course, all of us are just stating our own opinions based on our feelings... it's just an Internet forum, we're all only here because we enjoy talking about the case and hearing each other's viewpoints, right?
Someone upthread said that you need to have some physical damages as well as emotional damages in California - I have no idea if that is true.
But I'm still not quite sure about what you are saying. Are you saying that emotional injuries are never real, and should not be considered as damages in court? That's fine if you are, I just want to make sure that I understand your opinion...
I agree (now that I found out that this was a basal cell and not a melanoma) that the cancer was not likely caused by this one exposure.
So what should one do in a situation where you hire someone to do something, they don't do it, and as a result you suffer some sort of injury (assuming for the moment that emotional injuries are real)..? Apart from suing them for a lot of money, what are your other options, and which one would you choose?
Suing for a small amount of money? Not sure you could get a lawyer to spend 5 years working on the case for 40% of $10,000, and not sure that it would have much effect on the industry.
Taking revenge through violence? Forgetting about the whole thing?
I don't know what I would have done, but the lawsuit doesn't seem to be something that I would take off the table...
I wonder what would have happened if Dan went to the shop and said "look, you screwed up. I'm worried about my health because of this and if it will happen to someone else. Give me $20k for my pain, suffering, PTSD and blistering sunburn on my cheeks and promise to change your procedures. Do that and I'll sign a release."
inventor
Contributor
I understand what you mean about what basically amounts to being criticized for being open minded.. That is just not right in my book! Sorry you have received PM's that have been upsetting:consolation:
No apology needed. Rather than jump to conclusions or get upset I asked for clarification. That is the nature of communication to me
I like to make sure I am not reading anything into what people say that isn't intended. I certainly hope people will do the same with me when necessary.. words are imperfect and esp without visual clues! Thanks for the clarification.
ItsBruce
Contributor
Some thoughts on some posts since my last post:
1. Perjury is intentionally testifying to something one knows is false. Juries in California are instructed to the effect that "Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. [¶] However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest." (Most states say something similar.)
2. I have seen many examples of juries finding a defendant not only liable, but liable for punitive damages (for conduct it found was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent -- as discussed above), where the trial court or appellate court found that there was not even liability. Most recently, there is the "Gas Company" case I mentioned in post #340. There was one in which an insurance company was dinged for like $50 million dollars in punitive damages to punish it for maliciously denying someone's claim, where the appellate court held the claim was not even covered.
3. I have serious problems with the DM having missed Dan. Maybe it is because I'm a diver and it could happen to me. I have serious problems with the DM having marked Dan as having gone into the water on the second dive. I understand that the DM claimed that he marked Dan back from the first dive because someone answered for him. I do not know if this was contradicted at trial or if the jury believed it. I understand that the DM marked Dan as having done the second dive because no one was left on the boat. I don't know what the jury may have thought about that. (See point #1 above.)
4. I am not invested in this case. I have no dog in the fight. And, as noted I have serious problems with the DM having missed Dan and then having marked him as having done the second dive. However, having now thought about this more and more and considering Ken's analysis on drift and considering the "Gas Company" case I mentioned in post #340, I am having more and more trouble with the jury's finding. Did Dan prove by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. just a bit more than the evidence against him) that *but for* (magic words here) the DM's failure to mark him aboard after the first dive, that none of the things that followed would have happened? Given the way the Court of Appeal treated the plumbers who were burned, I'm not so sure.
5. I would expect that Dan's lawyer is bright enough to be analyzing what is likely to happen on appeal. As a result, I expect that there will be some negotiations and possibly a mediation and that there will be some sort of compromise. Given the verdict, the defendants should not risk losing the appeal if they can compromise for a number that makes sense to them. Given the possibility that an appellate court will reverse entirely, Dan should not risk going away empty handed if he can compromise for a number that makes sense to him. Of course, in the "Gas Company" case, there was no compromise and the numbers were much higher.
1. Perjury is intentionally testifying to something one knows is false. Juries in California are instructed to the effect that "Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. [¶] However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest." (Most states say something similar.)
2. I have seen many examples of juries finding a defendant not only liable, but liable for punitive damages (for conduct it found was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent -- as discussed above), where the trial court or appellate court found that there was not even liability. Most recently, there is the "Gas Company" case I mentioned in post #340. There was one in which an insurance company was dinged for like $50 million dollars in punitive damages to punish it for maliciously denying someone's claim, where the appellate court held the claim was not even covered.
3. I have serious problems with the DM having missed Dan. Maybe it is because I'm a diver and it could happen to me. I have serious problems with the DM having marked Dan as having gone into the water on the second dive. I understand that the DM claimed that he marked Dan back from the first dive because someone answered for him. I do not know if this was contradicted at trial or if the jury believed it. I understand that the DM marked Dan as having done the second dive because no one was left on the boat. I don't know what the jury may have thought about that. (See point #1 above.)
4. I am not invested in this case. I have no dog in the fight. And, as noted I have serious problems with the DM having missed Dan and then having marked him as having done the second dive. However, having now thought about this more and more and considering Ken's analysis on drift and considering the "Gas Company" case I mentioned in post #340, I am having more and more trouble with the jury's finding. Did Dan prove by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. just a bit more than the evidence against him) that *but for* (magic words here) the DM's failure to mark him aboard after the first dive, that none of the things that followed would have happened? Given the way the Court of Appeal treated the plumbers who were burned, I'm not so sure.
5. I would expect that Dan's lawyer is bright enough to be analyzing what is likely to happen on appeal. As a result, I expect that there will be some negotiations and possibly a mediation and that there will be some sort of compromise. Given the verdict, the defendants should not risk losing the appeal if they can compromise for a number that makes sense to them. Given the possibility that an appellate court will reverse entirely, Dan should not risk going away empty handed if he can compromise for a number that makes sense to him. Of course, in the "Gas Company" case, there was no compromise and the numbers were much higher.
Doug Charney
Contributor
Sure, there are many instances where emotional injuries are real. I just don't really think this is one of them. To me there would have to be long lasting effects. I've read several articles and he's not said anything about lasting effects. He just floated with the current, nothing attempted to eat him, circle him, harrass him. While I'm sure those 4 hours were frightening to him, I know they would be to me, but once he was rescued it was over.
To me, he's not taking responsibility for his own actions by suing. He would have been drifting whether the roll call was botched or not. The difference is how long. If he really wanted to affect change in the industry he could have started a campaign of sorts. Go to the media, tell his story, it would (has) have an effect on divers and ops.
You mean like appearing on the Today Show and on Oprah? Because he did both of those (pre-trial). I don't remember any outrage at the system during those interviews.
Similar threads
