Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

[The Chairman]

Few dive this wreck on a ball. It's almost always a hot drop and I believe that was the initial plan. It's my understanding that this part of the plan changed when the guide changed.

 

[aue-mike]

Few dive this wreck on a ball. It's almost always a hot drop and I believe that was the initial plan. It's my understanding that this part of the plan changed when the guide changed.

I don't think that's accurate at all. As mentioned before, current is seldom an issue on this wreck, but poor vis is frequently encountered due to the talcum like sediment. I have been on this wreck many times and have never hot dropped it.

 

[cathal]

As I understand it (and of course this could vary by jurisdiction, and IANAL) employees are agents of the employer and therefore the employer is responsible in any civil case that results from the actions of the employee. OTOH, if you hire a contractor or sub-contractor you're their customer, not their employer. You may be responsible to a third party, but that doesn't mean that the contractor isn't also responsible to the third party, or to you.

I think you answered your query there with the line "if you hire a contractor or sub-contractor" The key word being "hire". By default in this context in the jurisdiction where I reside when you hire someone you are their employer.

Rgds

Cathal

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

Picking this back up to add a few data points we didn't have prior to the Sotis v. IANTD case. Please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the following:

• The deceased was certified as an IANTD CCR Normoxic Trimix Diver,
• He had begun his full trimix certification with Sotis,
• That certification was not yet completed (some have said "paused") at the time of his death, and
• At least two dives on the day of his death (though perhaps not the fatal dive) exceeded his level of certification.

I'm sure opinions will vary wildly, but it seems to me that an instructor who agrees to act as a safety diver for his own student on non-training dives that the instructor knows to be beyond the student's certification level is foolishly exposing himself to a tremendous amount of potential liability.

 

[wedivebc]

Picking this back up to add a few data points we didn't have prior to the Sotis v. IANTD case. Please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the following:

• The deceased was certified as an IANTD CCR Normoxic Trimix Diver,
• He had begun his full trimix certification with Sotis,
• That certification was not yet completed (some have said "paused") at the time of his death, and
• At least two dives on the day of his death (though perhaps not the fatal dive) exceeded his level of certification.

I'm sure opinions will vary wildly, but it seems to me that an instructor who agrees to act as a safety diver for his own student on non-training dives that the instructor knows to be beyond the student's certification level is foolishly exposing himself to a tremendous amount of potential liability.

My students exceed their level of certification on every class I teach. (as well they should)

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

My students exceed their level of certification on every class I teach. (as well they should)

Yes, "on every class."

My understanding is that Sotis has gone to great lengths to say this was not a certification dive (i.e., not class).

 

[cathal]

My understanding is that Sotis has gone to great lengths to say this was not a certification dive (i.e., not class).

Therefore your barking up the wrong tree. It was a commercial dive, and the relevant legislation applies

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

Therefore your barking up the wrong tree. It was a commercial dive, and the relevant legislation applies

Ahh, but therein lies the problem. Even if you accept Sotis's version of events, it was a commercial dive in which an instructor agreed to act as a safety diver for his own student, who he knew was not yet certified (I won't say qualified, but the lawyers will) for such a dive. It won't take a creative lawyer to argue that an instructor's duty of care to his students covers such a scenario, and it won't take an unreasonable jury to agree. Especially where doing so apparently violated at least one agency's rules.

In the "what can we learn from this" category, "don't knowingly assist your own students in diving beyond their qualifications outside of the teaching environment" seems like it should be easily followed and non controversial (though I'm sure it will be neither).

 

[cathal]

I cant be clearer, it was a commercial dive, there are no instructor roles in a commercial dive other than in training. There are safety diver roles in commercial dives. You might be conflating the role of technical ccr instructor with that of commercial diving. They are two very different areas from a legal perspective. With one you are a paying customer, the other you are either the employer or employee.

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

I cant be clearer, it was a commercial dive, there are no instructor roles in a commercial dive other than in training. There are safety diver roles in commercial dives. You might be conflating the role of technical ccr instructor with that of commercial diving. They are two very different areas from a legal perspective. With one you are a paying customer, the other you are either the employer or employee.

It would be much simpler (and nicer for the defendant) if the world was so easily divided into black and white categories, but it is not. I'm not aware of any statute or precedent (and you've suggested none) that would prevent the deceased's attorneys from arguing there was a duty of care arising from the relationship between the parties, and at first blush, it seems to me (and my imaginary jury) to be a credible argument.

That's not to say that I absolutely think Sotis will be found liable. I just think that the narrative, as currently understood, is very problematic for him.