"Family of drowned Tennessee diver sues dive shop"

[EricTheDood]

?? Why do you think this is standard protocol?

Sorry, I should clarify. I'm neither a certified pro nor an expert on this subject matter.

My wording was poor. Instead of saying it's "standard protocol", I should have said that's what I've observed seeing DSD at resorts and the first dive or two for OW cert. "YMMV". I have no idea what the "official" protocol is with various agencies, or if there even is one.

That said, none of that really matters anyway with regards to this case, because it will most likely boil down to expert testimony and case law.

 

[yle]

My wording was poor. Instead of saying it's "standard protocol", I should have said that's what I've observed seeing DSD at resorts and the first dive or two for OW cert. "YMMV". I have no idea what the "official" protocol is with various agencies, or if there even is one.

PADI standards (e.g. the rules which PADI instructors must follow) for DSDs were stated and discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[kombiguy]

Secondly, there will be an investigation into how this accident happened. PADI's defense (as always) will be that the standards are not to fault because the standards explicitly tell the instructor that he cannot leave a student alone, which obviously he has.

Probably not in this case, at least not yet.
PADI's defense will initially be, most likely, that even if the allegations in the lawsuit are true, they fail to state a cause of action.
The complaint against PADI in this case make three claims:
1) That the defendant owned all the equipment provided, and had a duty to ensure it was suitable, and that it was not.
2) The defendant provided only one instructor and was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout, safety procedures, and instruction.
3) The defendant was negligent in failing to keep abreast of weather and current conditions.
None of these allegations, contained in paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of count III of the complaint(captioned: Kimbley vs. PADI) are factually correct, and, unless amended, should result in PADI's dismissal from the lawsuit.

Keep in mind that I am not licensed to practice law in Florida, although I am licensed elsewhere.

 

[boulderjohn]

Probably not in this case, at least not yet.
PADI's defense will initially be, most likely, that even if the allegations in the lawsuit are true, they fail to state a cause of action.
The complaint against PADI in this case make three claims:
1) That the defendant owned all the equipment provided, and had a duty to ensure it was suitable, and that it was not.
2) The defendant provided only one instructor and was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout, safety procedures, and instruction.
3) The defendant was negligent in failing to keep abreast of weather and current conditions.
None of these allegations, contained in paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of count III of the complaint(captioned: Kimbley vs. PADI) are factually correct, and, unless amended, should result in PADI's dismissal from the lawsuit.

Keep in mind that I am not licensed to practice law in Florida, although I am licensed elsewhere.

The part I still don't understand in this (and other lawsuits like it) is what the agency had to do with any of those three items.

I recently talked with a cardiologist about recommendations about treatments for certain cardiac conditions in relation to scuba. He explained that there is an association (I can't recall the name) that has recommendations. When your specific cardiologist looks at your specific situation and has to make a decision, he or she may decide that in your specific case it is OK to go against those recommendations. The problem is that if you then have a fatal event, in the ensuing lawsuit the onus will be on the cardiologist to explain to the satisfaction of a jury why that decision to go against standard practice was sound.

That makes sense to me. What I cannot imagine, though, is that the cardiology association would ever be sued by someone who felt its recommendations were not proper.

 

[Wookie]

You and I will never be in agreement on this subject, John, but that's OK, I still want to be your friend.

The difference is that the cardiologist's agency did not train the cardiologist, probably doesn't much monitor the cardiologist, doesn't provide "quality assurance" for the cardiologist, and merely comes up with a list of "recommendations" for the cardiologist to follow, whereas the scuba training agency (oh, that pesky training bit) requires membership in the agency for the instructor to be allowed to train using that agencies published training materials, provides oversight and quality assurance (such as it is) for each and every member of that agency, and while they provide recommendations, they also have established a rigid set of standards for the instructor to follow in order to be allowed to train for that agency.

Again, my problem with it is that while they have established standards, they haven't given guidance for "when is the appropriate time to be more conservative than standards" without breaking standards. While that may seem stupid at the outset, have you been around long enough to remember NAUI ditch and don? That was an open water skill for problem solving. I was evaluated on a ditch and don in 1996 as a PADI OW student, which went way beyond standards, one might say that my instructor was more conservative than the standards were, and over taught the course. Then our agency tells us that it's OK to teach at 4:1, 8:1, whatever, but never lose student control. You're breaking standards to lose control of your student. You are being more conservative to reduce ratios to meet other standards. You are shown that poor visibility isn't really breaking standards by the instructor examiner.

We don't give our young OWSIs all of the tools they need to make appropriate decisions.

That's the difference.

 

[boulderjohn]

hey haven't given guidance for "when is the appropriate time to be more conservative than standards" without breaking standards.

Do you mean in addition to the written materials and the video on the Pro website? In what ways do you find them deficient?

 

[Hawkwood]

Or the risk management section in every PADI Member Forum.

 

[cerich]

Do you mean in addition to the written materials and the video on the Pro website? In what ways do you find them deficient?

There are no conditions good enough for a instructor to teach at the limit of ratios and have control over all the students. I base that on my experience of over 20 years teaching in warm and cold, low to unlimited viz and having tried to teach at ratios and by grace and luck have never had a student injured. .

regarding the instructors responsibility to reduce ratios in less than ideal conditions, given that IMHO even "ideal" conditions at ratio is in fact flawed, reducing it is meaningless until you hit the 2:1 ratio. Just my 2 psi

 

[kombiguy]

The part I still don't understand in this (and other lawsuits like it) is what the agency had to do with any of those three items.

I agree. That is why I'm relatively certain PADI will be dismissed as a party, or the complaint will be amended. The complaint never alleges a failure by PADI to train, or a failure to provide guidance, or a claim that the standards provided were faulty. As to PADI, it is a very poorly written complaint.

 

[CuzzA]

it is a very poorly written complaint.

That's what I keep coming back to. Does legalzoom.com offer civil complaint services now???

Seriously... There are no teeth to this complaint, a pitbull definitely didn't write it and again they left out the one party who was actually there and responsible for the tourists.

On a side note... IMO and being a Gulf coast diver, conducting discover scuba dives on this side of Florida should really be reconsidered, probably limited to 2:1. The viz here is hit and miss. It's not uncommon for 40ft one week and 5 ft the next. Often times you have to travel 20+ miles to get into bluewater and even that may not help.