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

[kensuf]

So in summary, the deceased, who was both a certified diver and graduate of the commercial diving academy, lied about his intentions for the day at both the front gate and main counter during check-in, and died.

I wonder what toxicology reports would show for his BAC?

 

[cerich]

Yes I know. I'll probably buy a JB Season Pass next winter, the price is certainly right. I've started to spend a bit more time in Marianna but I still like the variety around North Florida area for caves and accessibility to Gainesville.

According to family it came back negative for booze and drugs.

This website is unavailable in your location. – Action News Jax

www.actionnewsjax.com

 

[SlugLife]

According to family it came back negative for booze and drugs.

This website is unavailable in your location. – Action News Jax

www.actionnewsjax.com

The only other piece of "new" info in the article I saw was this:

a witness told police he went underwater with Johnson. He said they were under for 15-20 minutes before he noticed Johnson was having difficulties. Johnson was unresponsive by the time he could get help.

Maybe the article comes across differently to non-scuba divers, and I clearly see them trying to spin it as "OMG, CDA bad, Morin bad." But just the slightest hint of skepticism and fairness to both parties, and I already think this case is a terrible flop without even hearing the defense side of the story.

 

[pauldw]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

--William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, scene 2​

"The first thing we do, let's kill 99% of the lawyers."
--Yeah, that sounds better.

 

[pauldw]

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?

No, that isn't reasonable. If people want to charge others to enter their private property, they can do so. The entry fee pays for access. It doesn't create a responsibility for someone to hold your hand. If it cost a million dollars a pop to go to Ginnie Springs, then that wouldn't create any kind of obligation on anyone, because it would be an entry fee for access. Period. Either pay the entry fee because you want access, or don't pay it and don't access it. If the fee is too high, people won't go, and the market will adjust. It makes no sense that you get to tell someone else what they have to do with the entry fee you are willing to pay for access. If you don't think they've done enough with the site, then don't go there. If enough people agree with you, the market will adjust and make them fix things up. Whether someone has an obligation to take certain steps to minimize liability has nothing to do with how much someone is paying to go onto the property, it has to do with whether the property owners have a legal duty to take those steps. If they do, then they should, and the amount of the entry fee is irrelevant. If they don't, then it might be nice if they would but they don't have to, and the amount of the entry fee is irrelevant.

 

[johndiver999]

No, that isn't reasonable. If people want to charge others to enter their private property, they can do so. The entry fee pays for access. It doesn't create a responsibility for someone to hold your hand. If it cost a million dollars a pop to go to Ginnie Springs, then that wouldn't create any kind of obligation on anyone, because it would be an entry fee for access. Period. Either pay the entry fee because you want access, or don't pay it and don't access it. If the fee is too high, people won't go, and the market will adjust. It makes no sense that you get to tell someone else what they have to do with the entry fee you are willing to pay for access. If you don't think they've done enough with the site, then don't go there. If enough people agree with you, the market will adjust and make them fix things up. Whether someone has an obligation to take certain steps to minimize liability has nothing to do with how much someone is paying to go onto the property, it has to do with whether the property owners have a legal duty to take those steps. If they do, then they should, and the amount of the entry fee is irrelevant. If they don't, then it might be nice if they would but they don't have to, and the amount of the entry fee is irrelevant.

You seem to have missed the point, which I tried to put in bold letters. The fact that this is NOT an access fee. Everyone pays the access fee. They charge an independent and additional fee for the use of scuba gear on their site.

 

[L13]

You seem to have missed the point, which I tried to put in bold letters. The fact that this is NOT an access fee. Everyone pays the access fee. They charge an independent and additional fee for the use of scuba gear on their site.

Still an access fee. If you want access with scuba gear, it costs more.

Just like a park might have an adult access fee and a child access fee: there is no obligation to provide any more to the adult (safety or service) than there is to the child.

 

[MrVegas]

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

But even here on Scubaboard, most people don't seem to actually believe this anymore. The idea that divers are primarily responsible for their own safety and that they are knowingly engaging in a risky activity when they enter the water has pretty much gone out the window.

People can blame the lawyers all they want, but the lawyers are just the instruments through which the desires of the people are delivered. People expect to be protected from themselves in all cases, and that will ultimately mean diving becomes more expensive with fewer opportunities available.

 

[PR_SMITH]

"The first thing we do, let's kill 99% of the lawyers."
--Yeah, that sounds better.

I was driving along the other day and encountered two piles of road kill, one was a skunk, the other a lawyer.
I could tell which was which since the only the skunk would have skid marks in front.

 

[The Chairman]

Has there been any progress on this case?

Ginnie is my least favorite place to dive around here. Too many rules, too much to get in, and I was embarrassed when they charged peeps to come in for a wake of an instructor who had died. But, and I have a big butt, I can't understand why this tort exists. Unless they can demonstrate a gear issue, then it's all on the diver. At least to me. The fault almost always lies with the one who died, and that's the price you often pay for breaking the rules.