Fatality Off Miami Beach - Florida

[diverrex]

Even with the different versions of this story it does seem clear that there was a breakdown in the buddy system. Diving loosely in a group with no clear buddies is a problem. I really don't like diving other than in two person buddy teams. Sometimes I will dive in a three person group but do find that problematic. Anytime I am in more the a three person group I make it clear who my buddy is and let the others know they they can come along but they need to be responsible solely for their buddy group. For instance I will tell them that we can try to stay together but if we get separated our buddy pair will continue the dive without looking for them and they should continue their dive independently. Of course this doesn't work out so well when you have a situation like what appears in this case where the victim and her buddy do not appear to be qualified to dive independently. I would not be surprised to find out that victim had very few total dives and/or has not dived recently. Why people with minimal training and minimal experience think it's ok to jump into the ocean without more support is beyond my comprehension. Do the marketers of the sport be they agencies, charters, dive shops etc, make it seem too easy?

 

[Abdullah]

Previous posts indicated she needed help assembling her kit, which is an indicator of either inexperience or severely rusted skills. Did anyone identify if the diver may have had some sort of medical problem that may have aggravated the situation? Sometimes the behaviors she apparently displayed on the surface are an indicator of a physical problem in the water. An inexperienced diver with a medical issue could quickly devolve into a panic driven catastrophic problem.

I'm also curious if anyone asked her if she was OK on the surface. The OK signal is universal, regardless of her English fluency. A failure of a diver to respond to an OK signal is an invitation for an experienced diver to get involved.

 

[Beanbag1]

Nonetheless John, if you are simply diving and enjoying yourself, and see an unconnected diver who from your expertise you ought to believe may be in danger, even if that person has no idea of possible danger, do you think you should intervene? I think you should, and the Courts in England (which seem to see things differently from Courts in the USA) often think that way as well. A doctor demonstrably (provably) saw someone who had had an accident and elected not to intervene. The person died and the doctor was charged with manslaughter, and convicted. The Court held that a person with expertise who chooses not to use that expertise to help a complete stranger nonetheless owes that stranger a duty of care. Remember this was an English Court - from what I've gleaned an American Court would hold the opposite view. There is obviously the burden of proof that the "expert" did in fact see and understand the situation so knew he could help if he so chose, and it is through that proof not being available that many of these cases have failed. But that doesn't change the principle.

Here is a quote directly from a legal website as regards liability of experts in UK law. Whilst it refers to clinicians as 'experts' in this example it is clear that this principle woould apply to any type of 'expert'.

"A person, whether a healthcare professional or a member of the lay public, who witnesses a situation ‘in the street’ where life-saving First Aid might be required is under no obligation to assist, provided the situation was not caused by him. However, if that person does choose voluntarily to intervene to render assistance they will assume a duty of care towards the individual concerned. By starting treatment you are accepting a responsibility to the care of that person."

 

[Abdullah]

"A person, whether a healthcare professional or a member of the lay public, who witnesses a situation ‘in the street’ where life-saving First Aid might be required is under no obligation to assist, provided the situation was not caused by him. However, if that person does choose voluntarily to intervene to render assistance they will assume a duty of care towards the individual concerned. By starting treatment you are accepting a responsibility to the care of that person."

I don't think this type of liability question is relevant to the divers in the water. Ask yourself this question: Would I allow someone to step off a curb into the path of a speeding bus if I could reach out and stop them? Most of us would reach out and stop them. Why wouldn't we make the same choice with another diver?

 

[Beanbag1]

I don't think this type of liability question is relevant to the divers in the water. Ask yourself this question: Would I allow someone to step off a curb into the path of a speeding bus if I could reach out and stop them? Most of us would reach out and stop them. Why wouldn't we make the same choice with another diver?

I think its is entirely relevant to the discussion (is there a duty of care for Instructors/Dive Masdters not assigned to specifically buddy with a diver) which was going on prior to my post. Of course you would have to be a monster not to intervene to help a person in trouble irrespective of your level of expertise. However, that was not the point under discusion...

 

[danvolker]

Here in Palm Beach, where we drift dive, groups will be dropped in the water, and it is KNOWN that everyone must descend quickly or miss the reef site intended. It is fairly common on boats with lots of OW1 divers, or even AOW divers, that one member of a group will not be able to clear their ears, and they will not descend( will go down a few feet, then surface and stay there)....when this happens, groups will sometimes wait a few minutes, and sometimes just assume the diver will not be in the group.....

So this is a norm in diver behavior....if we don't like this as a norm, we need to get agreement on this, then work to change it....

To me, it is only relevent to the buddies involved--the one on the surface, and the one that is LEAVING THE BUDDY ON THE SURFACE, and heading down.

Then there is a very separate issue, something we should have additional discussions on... where two rank novices are buddying together, both are dependent divers, and niether offers any real support to the other.

 

[diverrex]

I do find it strange in any instructor/ student dive that an instructor would allow "tag alone" divers. Personally I would be pissed if I was in any class and the instructor allowed it. I want the instructor's attention focused on me the paying student or other paying students in our group not on tag alongs. I would also not be happy with an instructor brining a camera unless it was solely for filming class. An instructor should not have their own dive agenda other than instruction. i would think any instructor in a class situation should make it clear to other divers they are not to come along. And if the situation happened the way it's reported that either the student or the first "tag along diver" offered for the two Asian women to join them I think the instructor as the leader should correct that and formally let them know they are not part of their group. If an instructor or any competent diver suspects that a dive buddy pair are not competent to dive independently I think they should point that out to the diver charter for them to resolve.

 

[danvolker]

I think its is entirely relevant to the discussion (is there a duty of care for Instructors/Dive Masdters not assigned to specifically buddy with a diver) which was going on prior to my post. Of course you would have to be a monster not to intervene to help a person in trouble irrespective of your level of expertise. However, that was not the point under discusion...

If an instructor is already tasked with 2 dependent divers, and has their hands full with one wanting to go one way, the other the opposite ( the "herding cats" problem of new dependent divers) , I think it would be a violation of the instructor responsibility to the 2 divers this instructor is formally tasked with, for this instructor to take on the extra responsibilities of a diver not related to the 3 person instructor group, someone that is screwing around on the surface.......This whole issue changes DRAMATICALLY if the one on the surface had been told by the instructor, that they would be helped by the instructor on this dive--that they could be DEPENDENT. I don;t think that happened in this case, and I think you will find that most instructors would be horrified with the idea that any diver not related to their students, that can't clear and can't descend, is somehow automatically their problem--their liability.

Also....there is a whole separate issue if an instructor or skilled diver actually SEES a diver in distress, and purposely chooses to do nothing...that would be another can of worms..how to drag your dependent charges with you, and effect a rescue up on the surface..... But it does not appear that this was going on at all....As far as I can tell, NO divers on the boat or in the water, had any awareness that the Chinese girl was in any trouble....some just thought she had a gear adjustment problem, and that type of thing happens on boats full of new divers all the time...loose leaky masks, fins that hurt or are loose, not enought weight to get down, etc. If I am wrong about anyone being aware of the problem, I would hope someone will correct me here.

 

[Abdullah]

I think its is entirely relevant to the discussion (is there a duty of care for Instructors/Dive Masdters not assigned to specifically buddy with a diver) which was going on prior to my post. Of course you would have to be a monster not to intervene to help a person in trouble irrespective of your level of expertise. However, that was not the point under discusion...

Do you really think instructors/DMs are making a duty of care versus litigable liability decision when they choose not to help out? Or is it more likely that they have other plans in motion and they're leaving the situation to be resolved by "the next guy"?

I think a learning point is that there were experienced divers who saw the potential for disaster with this lady and didn't step in and lend a hand, whether on the boat or in the water.

 

[Beanbag1]

Do you really think instructors/DMs are making a duty of care versus litigable liability decision when they choose not to help out? Or is it more likely that they have other plans in motion and they're leaving the situation to be resolved by "the next guy"?

I think a learning point is that there were experienced divers who saw the potential for disaster with this lady and didn't step in and lend a hand, whether on the boat or in the water.

Quite so. However the matter of liability was a theoretical side issue postulated by a number of posters here. It's merely a point of interest.