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

[scubamarketing]

Having been an instructor for very large groups and also having worked on a liveaboard, this whole situation surprised me. But I was on vacation last year on a highly recommended boat and our crew bailed on people (and took on others from another boat from a different resort at the same site) despite my warning to the crew that a couple I'd been diving with for days was not back on the boat. The sad reality is this stuff happens. In both the case discussed above and my trip, everyone eventually got home okay, but it could have turned out worse. We never incorrectly accounted for divers in my professional experience and it felt very easy to keep track of our divers. If this makes dive operators wake up and practice some of the most obvious, simple due diligence, the award is appropriate in my opinion.

 

[spoolin01]

A ships captain is responsible for the safety of his crew an passengers. It doesn't matter to whom he has assigned the responsibility of counting heads, (unless there was some kind of deception going on) he retains the ultimate responsibility of making sure he does not leave a diver in open sea. You can say that it's just a mistake or misunderstanding, but it's one that the captain's procedure should absolutely prevent under all circumstances. I just don't feel any sympathy for him or the dive shop.

This!

 

[fnfalman]

Was this the dude that with barely a handful of dives under his belt then decided to go oil rig diving?

It sounded like there were mistakes abound by all parties involved. This dude was an idiot for getting in over his head. HOWEVER, the divemaster was inexcusably negligent for not taking a proper roll call. TWICE!!!.

 

[inventor]

This is at least the fourth thread on this, just today. And at least one other. Can we just search before posting? And combine the threads?

 

[Leejnd]

I did search, and I am well aware of the other threads. I posted this here because this is the SoCal forum. There are many of us who tend to hang out just in this forum, many of whom are friends and dive buddies of mine. So there are people I know, who know about this case, who very well might not have seen the other threads. I posted it here as an item of interest to our specific locale.

Which begs the question - this is the SoCal forum. Why are YOU here? And why are you chastising me for posting something of interest in our local forum? Just curious.

 

[Leejnd]

Was this the dude that with barely a handful of dives under his belt then decided to go oil rig diving?

It sounded like there were mistakes abound by all parties involved. This dude was an idiot for getting in over his head. HOWEVER, the divemaster was inexcusably negligent for not taking a proper roll call. TWICE!!!.

HT, I do not believe he was an inexperienced diver. He was AOW certified. Based on all of the reading I've done on this case, this case had nothing to do with his being in "over his head."

He was checked in for roll calls, TWICE, even though he was not on the boat. The boat left him drifting alone in the ocean. Then, due to their having mistakenly checked him in for the second dive at a site ten miles away, when they DID realize he wasn't on the boat, they told the Coast Guard to search for him at the SECOND site, almost assuring that he would not be found. The fact that he WAS found is nothing short of a miracle.

Hence, I do not believe this case has anything to do with any errors he might have made, or any lack of experience on his part. The boat left him at sea - that is simply inexcusable. In my opinion.

 

[Freezerbrn]

I do want to make one more comment: while what Mr. Carlock experienced was horrific, there is a silver lining: I have been on dozens of SoCal dive boat trips since this incident, and the roll call practices have been impeccable on every single one. I'm confident that this incident has something to do with that. So his horrible experience has, IMO, increased the safety for all SoCal divers (and possibly many other locations as well, as this case is well known across the industry). Who knows how many lives have been saved by the attention this case, and roll call practices in general, have received?

Quote from Divemaster Dave Re- bad roll call on aboard Humbolt Yukon dive 9/11

- Humboldt brought divers on board at the Yukon (most of them)
- Humboldt did partial SI at the Yukon
- Humboldt traveled to Ruby (passed other dive boat en route)
- Humboldt completed SI at Ruby (with time at Yukon and Ruby about an hour)
- Humboldt put divers in the water at Ruby E.
- Humboldt found out a diver was missing upon recovering divers at Ruby E and returned to Yukon

End quote

Still some work needed in this area. I don't have a lot of boat dives but I can say one boat I was on this summer I noticed the following, 1) the DM was not suited up, 2) there was no number assigned to divers, 3) if there was a roll call I didn't hear one, 4) there was no clip board or form of checking off each diver as the went in or out of the water. It was a yukon dive BTW. And yes it was a LDS charter. I did bring up my concern to the LDS later on. I got a list of reasons that all was fine and there was must have been some type of roll call that I was unaware of. huh! But what do I know, it was an AOW class and I'm a newbie.

my .02

 

[Rhone Man]

I don't have any problem with the finding of negligence (or contributory negligence for that matter), but the size of jury awards in the US never ceases to astonish me. $1.68 million for 5 hours floating around at sea? That is a good day's work. Tell me there isn't anyone on the board who wouldn't take that deal.

 

[Blackwood]

I thought they were supposed to select "juries of their peers?"

Unless there's something in the CA State Constitution to that effect, no. The US Constitution calls for a jury of people who live in the area where the crime was committed. Civil cases refer to jurys with no alteration of the terms (i.e. adding the term 'peers').

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

There are a few things in the article that I found disturbing. E.g. the jury reduced his award on the grounds that he was partly responsible because he had been told to surface closer to the boat, in spite of the fact that he was caught in current. And, the defense contended that he should be judged 50% responsible because, as the defense attorney claimed, ""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." HUH? He CHOSE to allow himself to be swept out to sea? Yeah, okay, I guess he had a death wish and WANTED to be abandoned in the middle of the ocean.

When you dive the rigs, you are told in the pre-dive briefing to swim to a specific leg of the rig and to surface at the same leg. When it is clear, the DM will direct you to swim to the boat. Dan had only a handfull of dives, none within the previous year. He arrived without a buddy and asked if he could tag along with three guys from the shop. They agreed, but when they began their descent, Dan had trouble clearing. The rest of the team figured he had gone back to the boat when they didn't see him descend. Rather than ascend, he continued to try to equalize, losing sight of the other divers and the rig itself. That is a huge no-no ten miles offshore. When he finally surfaced he said he saw the boat, but when they didn't hear his whistle, he figured they would come and look for him. He never mentioned anything about leg cramps until recently. He had no business being on a dive like that to begin with, he didn't attempt to swim back to the boat, and he didn't follow the briefing. After the entire debacle ended, he did interviews with Oprah, the Today Show and several other media outlets, never once claiming any responsibility.
I think the judgement shoud be shared equally three ways.