Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

[mderrick]

Does anyone know what Robs certification level was?

It's not much of an assumption that the charter operator was told by the divers themselves they were qualified to do the dives, probably as part of the release. IMO the whole issue of how he was trained, who he was trained by and what agency issued various certifications (if any) appear to be a bit of a "red herring" from the standpoint of the legal complaint. It certainly was't much, if any, issue in another recent court case involving the fatality of a well known photographer on a rebreather who was clearly unqualified. There is no legal authority that reviews training standards and blesses training standards. I've never had a "U.S. Government Inspector" appear for the purposes of auditing my compliance with training standards. Recreational scuba diving in the U.S. is actually one of the areas of my life that thankfully seems largely unregulated. Training standards exist in part because you can't get insurance to underwrite the risks without them, because on the whole they reduce risks during training. Training standards are minimums, some agencies prefer the instructor not to exceed them and other agencies prefer the minimums be exceeded. After formal training you may select your own level of risk you find acceptable, at least in America.

While we know quality of training and experience are in someways related to dive accident statistics, it's not clear this would be germane to the legal case. If this wasn't an accident that occurred during formal training, then it's unlikely the plaintiffs would get very far trying to prove the deceased died as a direct result of being improperly trained. If for no other reason than what benchmark for proper training could be applied; agency standards? community standards? Perhaps, but as all the discussion here demonstrates, those are far from comprehensive, uniform, static, or even particularly well informed. Highly skilled and superbly trained divers also have dive accidents.

Again, I suspect that all the speculation, "blamestorming" and personal attacks on the internet discussions were a key factor in the amazing speed of the plaintiffs (as observed in previous posts before significant reports are even completed) and very limited number of defendants associated with this complaint. Technical diving is an extreme risk sport and can go wrong in an instant even when everything is done right, but human nature is to seek an explanation that reassures. "They made a mistake that wouldn't happen to me." or perhaps "My loved one could not have made a mistake." I'm not defending those named in the complaint, but applying well established sport diving concepts, vessel operations and community expectations to the rapidly evolving nature of technical diving activities is a non sequitur.

 

[jadairiii]

The Concannon post demonstrates .....

Nothing. Cancannon was not present at the time of the incident and is merely parroting what a "non-client" has authorized him to post/release.

Now the Plaintiffs will begin their discovery phase, depositions will be held, experts (on both sides) will be retained, private investigators will be hired and in a year or two the public may know no more than they do now.

 

[DavidFL]

Also, this is almost sure to go to trial in front of the Admiralty Law Judge, which is the Coast Guard version

Wookie, does the Coast Guard legal action get started automatically because of the Coast Guard involvement in the event and Coast Guard jurisdiction over licensing and operation of the boat?

 

[mderrick]

But the answers to this question will come out in the Coast Guard investigation. ... I'm really shocked at the timing of this lawsuit. It was filed before the rebreather report came back from NEDU..

It occurs to me, if you are the plaintiff attorney and looking for a quick cost-of-litigation settlement, then you rapidly go after the insured before any facts are in evidence. You hope the Coast Guard investigation doesn't point the finger directly at the vessel operator, which would likely reduce your settlement with the Sotis insurer. You hope the NEDU investigation does not find some question with the rebreather, reducing your settlement with the vessel insurer and so you avoid litigating, all the way to trial, the rebreather with Concannon, The whole thing is a complex tar pit, and the quicker you can get to a settlement with the underwriters, the better off you are because there are no deep pockets. (Are there ANY deep pockets in the recreational dive industry?)

 

[Wookie]

Wookie, does the Coast Guard legal action get started automatically because of the Coast Guard involvement in the event and Coast Guard jurisdiction over licensing and operation of the boat?

The boat had a marine casualty, commercial diving casualty, or OCS (Outer Continental Shelf)(oilfield) related casualty, and therefore filled out the appropriate form (CG-2692. Ask me how I know the number off of the top of my head), which started an investigation by the sector Key West investigating officer. Any marine injury that requires more than first aid gets this report.

The casualty that triggered this report was a death. The investigator has great leeway in how he handles the case, except when a minor film star is involved, but every one of my copies of this report I've filed has been closed at the local level. If you want to know how how any vessel has done, the information is available for any US vessel on a Coast Guard website. All of the Spree's injury/fatality reports are there for anyone to see, except most of the information is redacted for privacy.

Anyway, the investigating officer receives written reports from all present. I have had lawyers tell me never to fill out a report for the coast guard. I don't use that lawyer. The investigator looks at the reports, and tries to get the story straight in his head. If there are inconsistencies, they call for personal interviews. You may have your lawyer present. Remember, this is just a trained Coast Guard officer on his shore tour trying to get the story straight. When he feels that he has the story, he sends it up to the investigations branch at District (Miami in this case) with a disposition recommendation. If the district investigator agrees with the recommendation, that's what happens. If not, they get to a place where they can. Sometimes if this is over the head of the local investigator, CGIS is called in.

The disposition could be that the boat did everything right, it was a bad situation, and stuff happens. It could be that the boat did everything in it's power, but weren't equipped to do more, and stuff happens. It could be that the captain/crew did not follow their own procedures, or accepted industry standards (commercial vessel industry standards are different than scuba industry standards) and someone has to be punished. That would be a recommendation to go in front of the admiralty law judge. He is the final say in who gets punished for whatever infraction and what the punishment is. As far as specific cases go, look up what happened to Kyaa in California or Becky in Virginia.

 

[Wookie]

It occurs to me, if you are the plaintiff attorney and looking for a quick cost-of-litigation settlement, then you rapidly file a lawsuit naming the insured before any facts are in evidence. You hope the Coast Guard investigation doesn't point the finger directly at the vessel operator, which would likely reduce your settlement with the Sotis insurer. You hope the NEDU investigation does not find some question with the rebreather, reducing your settlement with the vessel insurer and so you avoid litigating, all the way to trial, the rebreather with Concannon, The whole thing is a complex tar pit, and the quicker you can get to a settlement with the underwriters, the better off you are because there are no deep pockets. (Are there ANY deep pockets in the recreational dive industry?)

I still don't get it. The Stewart family certainly doesn't need any money. Of course, lawyers always need money.

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

The Stewart family certainly doesn't need any money.

Right, which is why I doubt the "quick cost-of-litigation settlement" is their motivation. Frankly, if that's what you want, you'd be better off trying to negotiate a settlement before litigation, when you can use the threat of filing as an additional motivator.

This seems to me like a family who wants a jury to confirm their belief that someone was responsible for the death of their child. Whether or not that is true won't be known for a long time, and maybe never.

 

[mderrick]

when you can use the threat of filing as an additional motivator..

Regardless, my comments were speculation about the speed by the attorneys, rather than the motivation of the plaintiff.

 

[JohnnyC]

I agree, they want someone to be responsible for it, and if it turns out that the responsible person is not their deceased relation, they want a pound of flesh in return.

Unrelated, @Wookie I checked out the Spree on the IIR site, I'm very impressed. I wish all operators were as professional and responsible. Seriously, consummate professional. I regret never getting the chance to dive with you.

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

"Give me money or I'll sue" isn't a motivator to insurance companies... "I'll see you in court" is a threat that doesn't carry much weight.

As an attorney who used to represent insured defendants, I respectfully disagree.