Didn't see this posted anywhere here. A friend e-mailed me this pdf. today. Any legal people wanna take a gander and throw out an opinion?
DSD Fatality suit. Brooks v. PADI
- Thread starter JohnnyC
- 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
I am not a lawyer but I imagine PADI's lawyers will argue that the shop in question was not conducting DSDs in accordance with the standards they set/published. The PADI instructor manual defines "confined water" and the cove the shop chose does not match the definition per the document. I can see the shop/instructor as being held liable, but think the claims against PADI may be a bit specious.
I imagine a large settlement will be payed out which will never fully compensate the surviving family and friends for their loss.
-Z
I imagine a large settlement will be payed out which will never fully compensate the surviving family and friends for their loss.
-Z
I find it strange, or telling, that while the claim makes much of PADI having set what it states are “reckless” instructor-to-customer ratios and on the 40’ limit allegedly being much more dangerous than 30’, it does not seems to go on to argue or demonstrate that either of these things was a factor in the decedent’s death.
All the claim says on the actual death is that the decedent was with two other non-divers and one instructor, and he descended so that he was below the level where he could put his head above water, then ascended and suffered a fatal embolism.
There are also statements that the cove in which the fatality occurred was unsuitable for DSD, but again the claim does not actually attempt to show that these were relevant to the death.
I read the claim quickly and before my morning coffee, so maybe I missed it, but the absence of a chain of causation seems significant.
All the claim says on the actual death is that the decedent was with two other non-divers and one instructor, and he descended so that he was below the level where he could put his head above water, then ascended and suffered a fatal embolism.
There are also statements that the cove in which the fatality occurred was unsuitable for DSD, but again the claim does not actually attempt to show that these were relevant to the death.
I read the claim quickly and before my morning coffee, so maybe I missed it, but the absence of a chain of causation seems significant.
but Zef as already stated that PADI is guilty....
PADI is not likely to have any difficulty defending itself in this case. The complaint is a bit lacking in accuracy and relevant info. IANAL.
I want to point out that a complaint (what we have here) is an initial filing in a suit.
Neither interrogatories (formal Q&A about the details of the case) nor discovery (requesting and sharing of documents/evidence) have taken place yet. The meaty details have not yet been attended to, which is why the substance looks thin right now - it is.
It's also obvious that the plaintiffs' attorneys are not divers, but there will be expert witnesses to assist them later.
Neither interrogatories (formal Q&A about the details of the case) nor discovery (requesting and sharing of documents/evidence) have taken place yet. The meaty details have not yet been attended to, which is why the substance looks thin right now - it is.
It's also obvious that the plaintiffs' attorneys are not divers, but there will be expert witnesses to assist them later.
I suspect the meaty details will make the case even less likely to succeed.
I just skimmed it, but I see it was filed in federal court, based on maritime jurisdiction. Is that how people typically sue PADI in such cases? Interesting.
Similar threads
