Family sues over Florida Keys dive death

[cbm32]

Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder I guess. To some nearly every suit is frivolous, until they have reason to file one.

I am NOT saying that this particular suit is frivolous as I do not believe for a minute that I have enough information to make a determination. I can tell you that was the plaintiff in a suit that those on the defense, or at least one neurologist at least, felt was as frivolous as they come. However, as the one in a wheel chair that would NOT have been there had an MRI been done in a timely fashion once he went to the ER the first time, I didnt think for a minute that the suit was frivolous. There was a LOT of blame to go around, not the least of which belonged to the aforementioned neurologist that was unwilling to leave her comfy home to do an evaluation even though she was the one on call at the time, but NONE of it belonged affixed to me...however I WAS the one in a wheel chair and was told I would never walk again.

So who is to determine what is frivolous and what is not prior to the suit being filed and acted upon?

Sometimes it is just who's ox is being bored that determines any one individuals assessment of worthiness.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

The notion that the Anerican justice system is 'the best' is very far out of alignment with reality. Both our criminal and civil legal structures are not simply imperfect; they are fatally flawed. Like so much in this nation, our legal system floats on a sea of money and corruption. Outside of dictatorial systems and third world nations American justice is among the world's worst. Justice in America is more than just blind. It was accurately noted almost a century ago that the figure of Justice in front of courthouses wears a blindfold not because of any impartiality, but to conceal the maggots in her skull. Just about any advanced nation you can think of has a better system of justice than we do. It's not unpatriotic to point out the kind of idiocy that allows tort litigation in virtually any unfortunate circumstance. It is harmful to this country to permit this kind of thing, while pious lawyers bleat about protecting the interests of those harmed as they bank their customary 40%.

There are primitive societies that regard every death, every accident, as the result of witchcraft. When someones's cow dies these benighted communities attempt to determine who cast the evil spell and punish them. We are not very far advanced beyond that sorry condition. Look at the data regarding damages awarded for frivolous suits. You may have a difficult time finding them, because the legal profession dominates legislatures and protects its interests with great zeal. You might be surprised to discover that such damages are awarded most often when someone sues an agency of government. Our legal system stinks to high heaven, and only those living in a dark militant delusional ignorance could possibly assert otherwise - unless they are part of that system.

I write and I mean all this in a nice way.

I could point out that you're using a lot of dramatic adjectives while citing no facts. Or I could just say Macbeth, 5.5.26-28.

 

[agilis]

Ah, Dr Lecter, surely you can come up with something better than that tired old sound and fury quote. In any case, Macbeth was describing life itself.

Reading back through all the posts on this topic I realize that only mine lacks hard data. Others, especially yours, present material so chock full of facts and figures as to approach a mathematical analysis. I'm sorry for the dramatic approach. I understand that this kind of language has no place in this sort of discussion. Its proper place is on a stage, where poor players may strut and fret their hour upon it to their hears content, or in a courtroom, where much the same kind of posturing pays much better wages than Actor's Equity.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Oft times, it is not actually the "family" that is pursuing the suit, frivolous or not. Perhaps the family was trying to collect on a perfectly legitimate insurance policy and the insurance company launched suit on their behalf, in order to recover all or part of the payout.

 

[MisterVertigo]

Hi all - I'm trying to find out a bit more about this sad tale as I think it is a bit 'fishy' (sorry!) too, and knowing one of the party, I have a personal interest too, so it was great to come across your thread here. i don't have any experience of diving, unlike my friend in this story, but I do have experience of said person, and I know what they are like regarding decisions they would have had to make, if you follow.My main question is, does it seem likely that the two of them would have had to perish (rather than just one), and why, if he waved off one of his fellow divers, would he have wanted the other stay to help and possibly die? It just seems odd, something doesn't sit right. Also, is it a regular occurrence to not be able to locate a diver in peril in 15 mins (the time they spent searching for the couple after alarm was raised, but before coastguard called - again, you wouldn't call the CG first?)? That sounds wrong too, but as I said, I know nothing of diving and live a very long way from the ocean, so I'm not suggesting anything, just curious. Many thanks for listening.

 

[boulderjohn]

Hi all - I'm trying to find out a bit more about this sad tale as I think it is a bit 'fishy' (sorry!) too, and knowing one of the party, I have a personal interest too, so it was great to come across your thread here. i don't have any experience of diving, unlike my friend in this story, but I do have experience of said person, and I know what they are like regarding decisions they would have had to make, if you follow.My main question is, does it seem likely that the two of them would have had to perish (rather than just one), and why, if he waved off one of his fellow divers, would he have wanted the other stay to help and possibly die? It just seems odd, something doesn't sit right. Also, is it a regular occurrence to not be able to locate a diver in peril in 15 mins (the time they spent searching for the couple after alarm was raised, but before coastguard called - again, you wouldn't call the CG first?)? That sounds wrong too, but as I said, I know nothing of diving and live a very long way from the ocean, so I'm not suggesting anything, just curious. Many thanks for listening.

I had to read back through this thread to remind myself of the details. There is a far more detailed thread on this topic that is linked in this thread, and I advise you to read through it.

there are things in this situation that do not make sense to you as a non-diver, and you are understandably looking to divers for an explanation. The problem is that with the information that we have, there is a lot more that seems wrong to me as an experienced diver than you can imagine. In fact, I believe this is the most stupefying incident I know of. We clearly don't have enough information from the threads to form a good judgment. If you have information that came out after the last post in this thread more than two years ago, it would be helpful. Going from memory of the larger thread, here is what I remember and why it makes no sense.

1. The diver who first ran out of air supposedly had a lot of experience, but his actions speak of a beginning level of expertise.
2. The diver was apparently grossly overweighted, usually the sign of a beginner, but some excused it on the basis that it is common for lobster hunters to be overweighted to that degree. I have never seen that myself, but I am not a lobster hunter.
3. The diver had new gear and supposedly did not know how to drop his integrated weights. In almost all designs, weights are dropped by reversing the process by which they were inserted. I am guessing that the diver might have been using a specific system that you really do need to have more knowledge about. In fact, in that system, if you make a common mistake putting them in, they won't come out if you do use the release system as intended. I do not, however, have any information on the system used, so I can only guess. If someone knew the brand, it would help. It is also possible that a highly panicked diver would simply screw up the process badly.
4. The rescuer reportedly did not have a standard alternate air system, and the usual assumption is that she attempted to save the diver through a buddy breathing process in which a single regulator is shared. This system is rarely taught anymore because dive gear almost invariably have an alternate air systems today, and the buddy breathing process is considered by most people to be a dangerous one that can lead to the death of the rescuer as well as the out of air diver. That is, in fact, what most people considered to be the cause of death. Why her regulators did not include an alternate air source has been a major matter of conjecture. Some have said they believe she was wearing a system that did include a somewhat unusual system in which the alternate was on the inflator hose, but we have no confirmation of that. The theory in that case was that she as not familiar with its proper use.
5. The first rescuer also ran out of air, which would be a good reason to wave that person off in favor of someone else.

As you can probably see, little makes sense from an experienced diver point of view, and not enough is known. If your relationship allows you to fill in some information gaps, it would help.

 

[MisterVertigo]

Thanks for this. Unfortunately, I can't prove anything, as my assumptions are based on hear say, from Radwan, but I am convinced there is more to this. I doubt it will ever come to light now. Cheers anyway

I had to read back through this thread to remind myself of the details. There is a far more detailed thread on this topic that is linked in this thread, and I advise you to read through it.

there are things in this situation that do not make sense to you as a non-diver, and you are understandably looking to divers for an explanation. The problem is that with the information that we have, there is a lot more that seems wrong to me as an experienced diver than you can imagine. In fact, I believe this is the most stupefying incident I know of. We clearly don't have enough information from the threads to form a good judgment. If you have information that came out after the last post in this thread more than two years ago, it would be helpful. Going from memory of the larger thread, here is what I remember and why it makes no sense.

1. The diver who first ran out of air supposedly had a lot of experience, but his actions speak of a beginning level of expertise.
2. The diver was apparently grossly overweighted, usually the sign of a beginner, but some excused it on the basis that it is common for lobster hunters to be overweighted to that degree. I have never seen that myself, but I am not a lobster hunter.
3. The diver had new gear and supposedly did not know how to drop his integrated weights. In almost all designs, weights are dropped by reversing the process by which they were inserted. I am guessing that the diver might have been using a specific system that you really do need to have more knowledge about. In fact, in that system, if you make a common mistake putting them in, they won't come out if you do use the release system as intended. I do not, however, have any information on the system used, so I can only guess. If someone knew the brand, it would help. It is also possible that a highly panicked diver would simply screw up the process badly.
4. The rescuer reportedly did not have a standard alternate air system, and the usual assumption is that she attempted to save the diver through a buddy breathing process in which a single regulator is shared. This system is rarely taught anymore because dive gear almost invariably have an alternate air systems today, and the buddy breathing process is considered by most people to be a dangerous one that can lead to the death of the rescuer as well as the out of air diver. That is, in fact, what most people considered to be the cause of death. Why her regulators did not include an alternate air source has been a major matter of conjecture. Some have said they believe she was wearing a system that did include a somewhat unusual system in which the alternate was on the inflator hose, but we have no confirmation of that. The theory in that case was that she as not familiar with its proper use.
5. The first rescuer also ran out of air, which would be a good reason to wave that person off in favor of someone else.

As you can probably see, little makes sense from an experienced diver point of view, and not enough is known. If your relationship allows you to fill in some information gaps, it would help.

 

[scubadada]

After more than a year....

 

[NAM001]

This statement that really bothers me. It implies that one did not provide for the family so it leaves it to the family to do what they need to do to provide for themselves. It says it is ok to gouge the pockets of others when you cant/will not do for your self. If the loved ones don't have the resources they have no one to blame but the deceased. It also implies that if the family did have the resources there would be no suit. So its all about money and not justice. Sorry the statement just hit me wrong with todays entitled society.

It could be the loved ones just weren't left with the resources to carry on and they are doing what they need to do.

 

[FinnMom]

Most of the this thread was from 2012, but it was revived with a legitimate request for more news on the case and an answer to that request.

If we want to talk about suits regarding accidents or the justice sytem in general we should start a new thread. Not just because a lot of the discussion won't relate to this exact case, but also because it is clearly a subject of great general interest and it should be where people can find it.