Filmmaker Rob Stewart's family files wrongful death lawsuit

[cathal]

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.

It was a commercial dive therefore there was an employer, and in this instance a contractor and the dive site was a workplace. I think you'll find under the relevant legislation: OSH Act of 1970 | Occupational Safety and Health Administration the Company who engaged Sotis is the employer and Sotis Company was that of a Contractor.

 

[tursiops]

If it were a commercial dive, with OSHA therefore controlling, where was the on-site chamber?

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

Cathal, let's agree to disagree on the meaningfulness of your distinction.

 

[tursiops]

Let's agree to disagree on the meaningfulness of your distinction.

Can you say that in English?

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

Can you say that in English?

How about a picture?



(Edited my earlier comment to clarify I was responding to the comment above yours, not yours.)

 

[Wookie]

If it were a commercial dive, with OSHA therefore controlling, where was the on-site chamber?

You think that was the only commercial dive rule they violated was not having a chamber on site?

 

[tursiops]

You think that was the only commercial dive rule they violated was not having a chamber on site?

No, but it was an easy example.

 

[Wookie]

You think that was the only commercial dive rule they violated was not having a chamber on site?

This puts Sotis in another bad spot. There are exemptions in 1910 Subpart T for instruction. If he wasn't instructing (I don't know the latest on this) and he was being paid to be a buddy, he clearly fell under the rules of Subpart T which don't allow anything like what they were doing.

But I've been told (not by Sotis) that he and Mrs. Sotis were not being paid. This is important, as if they weren't instructing, and they weren't being paid, there is not a clear duty Sotis owed Stewart. If Sotis wasn't instructing, and Steward felt qualified to make the dive, Sotis isn't bound by law (morals are different, and everyone's are different) to stop the dive. If Sotis wasn't being paid (and again, I have no knowledge of this one way or another, but I'm told he wasn't), then he wasn't in the role of safety diver, but just a buddy along for the dive.

We must be careful what we expect out of our buddies. I am a solo diver because I know better, and I never want to be found responsible for another diver. Does the industry want to open a can of worms and say that a buddy is responsible for the safety of their buddy, with force of court cases behind it? I don't think so, regardless of how any of us feel about Sotis.

 

[Wookie]

I had a discussion with our shared insurance company earlier in the week for completely different reasons. There are specific exclusions in our policy for commercial diving. The policy is only in effect for instruction and they will make a stretch for scientific divers.

 

[abnfrog]

this will be sorted out by the court , being paid , not being paid , you CANT take off the instructor hat ...that was said on my it course in 2000 by peter meyer (insurance expert )