. . . and I'm curious about your overall impression of the accident investigation process described in that report.[\quote]
In Steve's presentation (whch I just re-read), he essentailly talks about (as an investigator - as opposed to an expert witness who is more of an advocate) detailing all the facts of the accident by interviewing people, looking at the gear, looking at the site, talking to first responders, etc., and the need to avoid altering anything in the equipment while you do all of this. I think that's absolutely perfect protocol.
He also mentions that a lot of jurisdictions who don't deal with this often (and even in LA County, we average only about 5 scuba deaths per year) don't have protocols in place or do things in different, perhaps less effective ways, than those who do it more frequently. None of this should come as a surprise. Sometimes, officials involved in an accoident simply don't know what to do because they've never been confronted with it before.
I'm guessing what's got you going is not Steve's presentation, but the post-presentation discussion, which centers on insurance/attorney involvement in everything. And it's important to make a distinction betwee the two. In the initial investigation of the accident, Jack Webb's voice can be heard: "Just the facts, ma'am." But once a lawsuit has been filed, fingers are being pointed and the conversation changes to "This was your fault" and "No it wasn't." Big difference.
According to Mr. Barsky, much depends upon what the lawyers want to happen.
I think that's an unfair charactarization. You're making it sound like the lawyers are hiding evidence and bribing witnesses to have things go their way. That's certainly NOT the case. But there's no question the lawyers - usually on trhe plaintiff's side - dictate the direction of the legal conversation in terms of what potential areas of weakness or liability there is and how to respond to that. And many times, you may get a plaintiff's attorney arguing something like "You should have been able to predict that Mr. X was going to have a heart attack" and it's a tactical legal decision as to whether or not you address that or dismiss it as being ridiculous on the face. And a lot of times the decisions are driven by an underlying thought of "How will this play before a jury of 12 non-divers, many of whom think it's dangerous to be underwater in the first place?"
It ever appears that the results of these "investigations" mostly are attorney/client privilege and not released to DAN or the public.
Well, yes and no. One of my personal concerns is how do we get this information to the diving public? It's not that there's a conspiracy to withhold facts. It's just that these things sometimes take time and also, once the litigation process starts, attorneys want to play their cards close to the vest so as not to release strategy and weaken their legal position. I understand and respect that. And when I post comments here, even these now, I'm weigihing in my mind the balance between what I'd like you guys to be able to know, what I know that may be considered privleged info and should be kept to myself, and what could affect any cases in which I might be currently involved. Some of the attorneys I've worked with do NOT want their experts commenting in the public realm, and some are OK with it as long as it's done with caution.
And don't think for a minute that attotrneys on both sides don't monitor these types discussions. There was a case I was involved in a few years ago (now over and done with) where there was a lot of commenting and speculating going on in a given thread. There was a particular person commenting who had no direct connection to the case, who was not invovled in the legal rpoceedings, and who knew nothing than other what they read in the thread. They kept making wild speculations that were not all based on the facts or had anything to do with reality. I was being deposed and one of the questions from the plaintiff's attorney dealt with a comment this person had made as if it was true fact. I answered that they weren't involved, didn't know what thery were talking about, etc. Plaintiff's attoreny tried to argue that because this person was posting so often, they were obviously a qualified expert (FYI, the term "expert" carries a legal distinction in court), and it got to the point where plaintiffs were going to subpoena this person to be deposed to testify as to what they knew and didn't know. (That part never came to pass and when I contacted this person privately to advise them of the situation, they stopped posting.)
There is a wolrd of difference between how we would look at an accident and say "What happened, what can we learn, how can we avoid this happening again" and an insurance compnay looking at it and asking "What will this cost us" and a plaintiff's attorney looking at it and saying "How much can I get for this"? At some point it becomes a numbers game when the insurers are trying to pay out as little as possible and the plaintiff's attorneys are trying to exploit every angle they can and a lot of it becomes confidential.
On the other hand, when things go to trial, that's all public record. And if you're willing to spend some time and dig through transcripts or go to LexusNexis or whatever, you can get this information. Some of the complaints I hear here boil down to "Why didn't anyone just hand me this info on a silver platter? I don't want to have to work to get it." I understand that, but that isn't the way the system works. In LA County, Coroner reports are public information. Pay your $88 and get a copy of whichever one you want. Police reports are NOT public information. But information in police reports revealed in public testimony IS public information. It's a complicated puzzle and jumble.
What is your observations of this from both your work with the county and your attendance of the DAN workshop?
My general opinion is that it's an imperfect system with a lot of people playing a lot of different angles and people do the best they can. But not everyone walks away happy in terms of trying to find out what happened. I will try to assure you that there's not some grand conspiracy going on to withhold information from the public realm. Most of it, probably 80-90%, gets out. And the few details that don't, at least from a standpoint of understanding things as a diver, aren't that relevant anyhow.
As to the overall conference, I thought it was a fabulous, candid, frank exchange of ideas. It's probably the first (and only) time that many of the major players in this industry have sat down in one room and really had meaningful discussions of "How can we make this sport safer and what problems do we see?" One of the concerns expressed, but put aside, was that - because the findings were being recorded and being published - people would be on-the-record in topics that are normally only disucssed behind closed doors. Some of the poeple attending (mabe 150 overall) I already knew, some I knew of, and some I'd never met. But it was an exciting three days and I think everyone - myself included - left Durham, NC, with a different perspective than they when they walked in.
Hope this all helps.
