If you're a lawyer, don't let me lecture you on it. 
(Paralegal.)
(Paralegal.)
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
Both filings were in FEDERAL court. They were just in different federal courts (Hawaii and the Central District of California).
PADI makes a pretty good argument for lack of admiralty here. There was no vessel here. Just because it "coulda" used a vessel or that PADI divers use vessels in other circumstances doesn't make THIS one vessel-related. It's also arguable that just because you dove off a vessel makes it subject to admiralty issues for something that occurs while you are in the water.
I can't vouch for Hawaii state courts, but again, courts generally don't like to see the same case going in parallel. Usually, one will be put on hold while the other plays out.
PADI makes a pretty good argument for lack of admiralty here. There was no vessel here. Just because it "coulda" used a vessel or that PADI divers use vessels in other circumstances doesn't make THIS one vessel-related. It's also arguable that just because you dove off a vessel makes it subject to admiralty issues for something that occurs while you are in the water.
I can't vouch for Hawaii state courts, but again, courts generally don't like to see the same case going in parallel. Usually, one will be put on hold while the other plays out.
Hmm... in the complaint the DSD instructors name is initially Adrian Ramirez. And then midway through the story it becomes "Rodriguez." Then it switches back to Ramirez.
sloppy work....
Scubagolf
Contributor
The complaint just provide notice of the claims being made. The Pretrial Order in federal court supersedes the complaint.
Non-lawyer here.
There's a long discussion in the filing about how reckless PADI was when it instituted DSD with a 6:1 instructor:student ratio and a 40' maximum depth--and how callous it was after a 1997 death, after which they lowered the ratio to 4:1.
But then the discussion of the incident itself shows that this particular DSD class had a 3:1 ratio and provides no information to suggest the decedent was in anywhere close to 30 feet, let alone 40.
Also, there's lots of discussion about how the cove was subject to waves and boat traffic, etc., but no information suggesting any of these factors had any role in this incident.
Seems like there's a whole lot of distance between the dots they want a jury to connect.
There's a long discussion in the filing about how reckless PADI was when it instituted DSD with a 6:1 instructor:student ratio and a 40' maximum depth--and how callous it was after a 1997 death, after which they lowered the ratio to 4:1.
But then the discussion of the incident itself shows that this particular DSD class had a 3:1 ratio and provides no information to suggest the decedent was in anywhere close to 30 feet, let alone 40.
Also, there's lots of discussion about how the cove was subject to waves and boat traffic, etc., but no information suggesting any of these factors had any role in this incident.
Seems like there's a whole lot of distance between the dots they want a jury to connect.
An open water dive is not a given for all DSDs as it is optional. Confined water is and is in "shallow water" As someone stated earlier, confined water is very clearly defined in the standards. It is also something I see many people use bad judgment on as more often than not, the ocean does not offer swimming pool like conditions "with respect to clarity, calmness and depth."
Similar threads
