Ginnie Springs, CDA, and Dive Instructor sued over drowning death

[boulderjohn]

I quoted Shakespeare above about killing all lawyers. The exact meaning of that in context is disputed, but a common belief is that it was inspired by what was alleged to be common practice at that time 500 years ago. Attorneys for opposite sides in a suit were believed to be making motions and appeals (whatever) with the only real purpose being adding to their pay. I believe that is what is happening today. The only winners in the NSS-CDS suit were the attorneys on both sides of the case, and they all won big.

 

[rhwestfall]

Yes, it is an attempt to find folks with any money, any who might also settle...

I am involved in a suit where a guy partied on a friend's boat at a local marina all day, left in his vehicle, and struck and severely injured (significant permanent injuries) a pedestrian. Where he struck the pedestrian was far off the shoulder into lawns (by the time they tracked him down there was no BAC issues). The road was County owned. The Town was brought into the suit because there was no sidewalk, and the Town Code says sewered areas are to have sidewalks (unless waived by the Town). The area in question had gotten a waiver from the Town as it would be a sidewalk from/to nowhere involving 7 homes. And, the County also didn't want them on the road for their own reasons..

The marina has been named, the friends have been named, the County, the Town, and a few others....

 

[SlugLife]

Facts of the case:

Overview of the claims:

Thank you for the summary. Based purely on this summary and what I skimmed, the lawsuit seems rather weak, counter-productive, and baseless. Basically "somebody died, so sue everyone, and hope for a payout!" I could change my mind based on additional information of course, however this is the PLANTIFF's case, without any response from the defendant, and I'm not convinced.

#18. I don't see how "allows scuba-diving" obligates a place to have rescue-divers actively monitoring for divers who might be trying to kill themselves.

#19 #20 #23 So what? So these scuba-divers broke the roles, and Ginnie springs doesn't have security guards micro-managing and monitoring, running around checking everyone and running off rule-breakers?

#21 I don't know why that's Ginnie Spring's responsibility? The only way to prevent a scuba-diver from killing themselves, is for the scuba-diver to be competent and careful. Once a diver goes under the water, it's almost impossible (or absurdly expensive) to have any monitoring of any sort. Worse, these divers didn't check in, so unless the park is watching every single person like a hawk, how would the park know?

CDA: There are multiple references to "CDA Scuba Gear", but I have yet to see even a tiny thread of logical connection between CDA and the gear itself, and the death. Might as well sue scubapro?

#28 If Isaiah is a certified scuba-diver, he should have all the basic knowledge that other OW scuba-divers have. Of all these OW scuba-divers certified every year 99.9%+ aren't getting themselves killed.

#30 & #31 Seeing as Morin wasn't actively instructing, there's zero reason why someone would act like a parent and say "You can only dive 15 minutes, and 30feet at most. And be back before dinner!" Maybe failing to check that someone is a certified scuba-diver before using equipment could be a problem, but otherwise, certified scuba divers are supposed to know their own limits, and not need a baby-sitter.

#32 Isaiah died .... and that's it? Nothing about how, or why he died? Or how anything referenced so far would have contributed to the death?

---

#38, #39 - No, is no obligation to monitor other certified scuba-diver's use of scuba-equipment.

#40 - Again, failure to act like a helicopter-parent around a certified scuba-diver, is not a contributing cause.

#42-#46 - I still don't see how CDA has anything to do with this.

 

[johndiver999]

TBH that is what the compliant expects, it claims that Ginnie was negligent because they didn't have rescue divers ready to respond to emergencies. Literally no one has rescue divers on site, let alone right there to assist in an emergency.

Purely IMO Ginnie followed the standard and customary procedures of the area among commercial operators. No site has people checking wrist bands at the water, they have exterior assess controls that do their best to filter divers from non-divers. And give divers a higher scrutiny level by checking certs and that they have a buddy (as required by cert level). But they aren't tearing through vehicles to look for gear that might be hidden.



In that case they would have to remove that to do the scenario that @boulderjohn describes.

I don't really agree with this argument or train of thought but..

The Ginnie Springs facility charges scuba divers a premium ( a significant one I think) in order to scuba dive.

If they provide zero supervision or oversight or additional safety, then why is it ethical for them to collect extra fees? Is it not reasonable to assume that for all this extra money (many thousands of dollars each month) that they would at a minimum, provide some superficial level of supervision? If they HAD provided the most superficial enforcement of their own rules, then the death would have been 100% prevented because the guy would never have got into in the water.

In reality, I think it is complete BS that they are subject to liability for this kind of crap, but I can see some twisted logic in going after them (see above).

This country really needs to move away from the liberal, nanny state BS and begin to demand some level of personal responsibility from adults. We are going to lose all our freedoms if nobody will be burdened with any personal responsibility. I wish they wouldn't settle and tell the family of the apparent drug addict to piss off.

 

[kelemvor]

I figured that this was going to happen. As while they do check your certs on check in, they rarely have anyone to check at the water anymore. Which implies that they are supposed to supervise but they don't. I think that their insurance will likely settle.

I believe that's a conscious decision, to remove Ginnie staff from that position. The biannual megadive event at Ginnie was permanently cancelled because Ginnie wanted us to provide staff to check divers at the entrance to the water... and of course, no such staff existed - it was just a group of like minded people who got together for some fun, and a few people donated some of their time to organize things.

The Ginnie Springs facility charges scuba divers a premium ( a significant one I think) in order to scuba dive.

If they provide zero supervision or oversight or additional safety, then why is it ethical for them to collect extra fees? Is it not reasonable to assume that for all this extra money (many thousands of dollars each month) that they would at a minimum, provide some superficial level of supervision? If they HAD provided the most superficial enforcement of their own rules, then the death would have been 100% prevented because the guy would never have got into in the water.

Until recently, they did provide that supervision. The fees haven't been reduced since the change, they raised the fees at the same time.

Yes, I'm bitter about it.

 

[SlugLife]

TBH that is what the compliant expects, it claims that Ginnie was negligent because they didn't have rescue divers ready to respond to emergencies. Literally no one has rescue divers on site, let alone right there to assist in an emergency.

Purely IMO Ginnie followed the standard and customary procedures of the area among commercial operators. No site has people checking wrist bands at the water, they have exterior assess controls that do their best to filter divers from non-divers. And give divers a higher scrutiny level by checking certs and that they have a buddy (as required by cert level). But they aren't tearing through vehicles to look for gear that might be hidden.



In that case they would have to remove that to do the scenario that @boulderjohn describes.

The only case I can think of where it makes sense to have rescue-divers available would be a dive-charter, which charges a hefty fee.

The only possible liability I can even imagine is Morin. You have someone drugged out, breaking rules, hosting the party .... and a death. The problem is, that's just a place to look for liability. I don't see the actual connection though. Morin would have to actually DO something, or have a more explicit responsibility (active instructor during a class).

 

[admikar]

Yep.

And that does not seem to matter one bit.

The NSS-CDS did not have insurance because it was prohibitively expensive, and the attorney fees almost bankrupted them. Where is the consolation that they were in fact innocent? Did that get them their fees back?

Here, if someone sues me and I win, they get to pay all of my expenses. Plaintiff might not have the money,but that threat will keep them from BS suing me.

 

[boulderjohn]

Here, if someone sues me and I win, they get to pay all of my expenses. Plaintiff might not have the money,but that threat will keep them from BS suing me.

It is possible for that to happen here, but that would require you to sue them for bringing their suit, and you would have to prove that their sut was not reasonable. (I am not an attorney so may not have all of this right.)

 

[-JD-]

I don't really agree with this argument or train of thought but..

The Ginnie Springs facility charges scuba divers a premium ( a significant one I think) in order to scuba dive.

If they provide zero supervision or oversight or additional safety, then why is it ethical for them to collect extra fees? Is it not reasonable to assume that for all this extra money (many thousands of dollars each month) that they would at a minimum, provide some superficial level of supervision? If they HAD provided the most superficial enforcement of their own rules, then the death would have been 100% prevented because the guy would never have got into in the water.

In reality, I think it is complete BS that they are subject to liability for this kind of crap, but I can see some twisted logic in going after them (see above).

This country really needs to move away from the liberal, nanny state BS and begin to demand some level of personal responsibility from adults. We are going to lose all our freedoms if nobody will be burdened with any personal responsibility. I wish they wouldn't settle and tell the family of the apparent drug addict to piss off.

Regarding the text I highlighted red: How would that really prevent him from going in the water. It might have made him go register, but since Isaiah was purportedly OW certified, he was nominally qualified to be in the water. So If he had registered he'd be golden.

28. Upon graduation, ISAIAH was only certified as an open water diver for approximately on month, and only had experience as a "hardhat diver," with no experience as a SCUBA diver; as ISIAHS's instructor at CDA, MORIN knew this.

Well, was he OW certified (which should mean that Isaiah damn well should have had some required SCUBA experience) or not?

No matter what, Isaiah, as an adult, assumedly fully trained in at least some basic form of diving, had certainly been exposed to the fact that you can't breath underwater "naturally" and, by implication, that going under water could make you dead if things don't go right. He was therefore reasonably forewarned of the danger by his prior educational experience.

Basically, Isaiah & Morin (and others not listed but implied) jumped the (private regulatory) "fence" and went diving: arguably a form of (criminal?) trespass and fraud/conversion. It may be bad publicity (grieving mother, etc.) but Ginnie should be counter suing the estate for the costs (loss of business, staff time to deal with the aftermath, attorney's fees, etc.) incurred as a result of Isaiah's deliberate, potentially criminal, actions.

From the complaint, Morin would sure seem to be an epic putz. Whether the substance accusations levied in the complaint are germane or they are just a a smear would be interesting.



Do we have any account of what happened beyond the complaint? Facts of the incident go a long way and the complaint is really "he died - everybody (else) is at fault."

 

[Manatee Diver]

The Ginnie Springs facility charges scuba divers a premium ( a significant one I think) in order to scuba dive.

If they provide zero supervision or oversight or additional safety, then why is it ethical for them to collect extra fees? Is it not reasonable to assume that for all this extra money (many thousands of dollars each month) that they would at a minimum, provide some superficial level of supervision? If they HAD provided the most superficial enforcement of their own rules, then the death would have been 100% prevented because the guy would never have got into in the water.

Well comparing to BG, DD, and Paradise Springs they all charge about the same as Ginnie and none of them provide that level of supervision. You are paying for facilities like showers and such. There is some supervision on site, but they all largely rely on exterior access controls and people being honest about their intentions.

Ginnie's practices fall inline with the practices of all the other sites in their local area.

Here, if someone sues me and I win, they get to pay all of my expenses. Plaintiff might not have the money,but that threat will keep them from BS suing me.

Florida does have that option, but you need to file a motion and judges generally award are selectively about when they award it to defendants as they also don't want to discourage legitimate plaintiffs from filing suits.